Virtual environments will be important for future collaboration. There are two end states of virtual environments - totally immersive video or computer-generated environments. Research has found that collaboration can be as good in virtual environments as in-person, and that more immersive environments lead to a stronger sense of togetherness. The technology is advancing to make large, realistic 3D displays cheaper. In the future, collaboration will involve effectively mixing video, virtual environments, augmented reality and other modalities to support different tasks.

1. Virtual Environments and the
Future of Collaboration
Ralph Schroeder
Oxford Internet Institute
TACTiCS, April 8 2011

2. Overview
• Real World Applications
• Why are Virtual Environments Important?
• Definition of Virtual Environments and Two End‐
states
• Some Findings
• Different Media For Being there Together
• Outlook for Technology, Society, and Collaboration
• Useful Tools for Thinking about the Future
• The Future of Distributed Collaboration

3. Real World Applications
• Business Meetings
– time and travel
• Training
– if difficult otherwise
• Design and Visualization
– Exploring spaces
• Online worlds
– For socializing
• Education
– Classes and co‐visualizations

4. Why are Virtual Environments Important?
• They are the most ‘extreme’ form of mediated being
there together
• Technologies for ‘being there together’ are
proliferating
• There are many preconceptions that mediated ‘being
there together’ is not as good as face‐to‐face
• Virtual Environments can help us to understand the
future of mediated collaboration

5. Definition of Shared Virtual Environments and two End‐states
• Definition: presence, plus interacting, plus
Copresence
– Sensory experience of being in a place other than
the one you are physically in, and being able to
interact with it, and being there and interacting
with others
• There are only two End‐States: totally
immersive video vs. computer‐generated
• We can work backwards from these ‐ to less
immersive forms of being there together

6. Blue‐C: the video captured immersive end‐state
Courtesy of Markus Gross, The blue-c project, ETH Zürich

7. Blue‐C
Courtesy of Markus Gross, The blue-c project, ETH Zürich

8. CAVE‐like Systems: the computer generated end‐state
Chalmers’ Tan VR-CUBE UCL’s Trimension ReaCTor

9. London – Gothenburg ‘Caves’

10. Doing the Rubik’s cube

11. Task: The Rubik puzzle

14. FtF

15. Other Tasks
With Anthony Steed and Dave Roberts

16. Some Findings
• Collaboration is as good as face‐to‐face
• The more immersive, the more sense of
the being there together (other things
equal!)
• Technology determines ‘leadership’
• Following and not following conventions
(going through avatars, leaning, pointing)

17. Activeworlds

18. Onlive Traveler

19. HP Halo

21. More Findings
• videoconferencing has been available for decades, but is not
widely used
– the ‘I’m having a bad hair day’ problem
– Findings about skype and grandparents and distributed
couples: realism doesn’t matter, being there together does
• In online virtual worlds, some social cues are not needed,
some forms of non‐verbal communication have limited uses
• online virtual worlds are enjoyable for socializing and joint
spatial activity
• Avatars need consistency
• Voice is a reality check
• People develop a stake in their world

22. Different Media for Being Together
• Instant Messaging
• Social Networking
• Videoconferencing
• Mobile Phones
• Shared workspaces
• All have
– High‐Low Spatial Component
– Self‐presentation component
– Large or Small Group Interaction

23. Tools for Thinking about the Future
• Only Two End‐States (video versus computer‐
generated), with different affordances
• Online spaces support spatial interaction, social
norms, and engaging content
• There are limits to the number of others that can be
focused on
• Mixed or Augmented Reality are subject to attention
limits
• All mediated forms of togetherness approximate the
two end‐states

26. Technology and Social Outlook
• Technological problems are solvable
• the technology for large 3D displays and interaction is
becoming cheap and widespread
• Users adapt to modality and self‐representation
• co‐visualization and co‐manipulation of spaces works well
• lots of things can be done together in online worlds that can’t
be done in the real world
• online sociability be can better than real world sociability
• online spaces can be more imaginative and interesting than
real ones
• Convergence and mixing of modalities

27. Collaboration Outlook
• How much face, body and space is needed?
• Facial photorealism/videoconferencing versus
Spatial computer generated environment?
– Not quite
• Large population worlds, small groups of
faces?
• How different is collaborating from
socializing?
• Time, money and environmental reasons
dictate less travel

31. Observing education in action through
scripting classes

35. The Future of Distributed Collaboration
• Face‐to‐Face interaction is not the Gold Standard
• Combining the Two (and only two) End‐States with Mixed and
Augmented Realities, Sensors, Geolocation, Tagging,
Crowdsourcing…
• Social networking and mobiles: ‘always on’ ‘availability’ and
‘awareness’
• Collaboration is becoming more multi‐modal, with greater
need for managing overload, and sharing and distributing
work
• The future consists of effective and enjoyable mixing and
matching of modes of being there together