A comment from Andrei Kouvchinnikov sparked a few thoughts about the nature of 3D collaborative solutions.  The new Sametime 3D solution as defined in the flyer talks about some of the 3D collaboration capabilities that will be delivered.  These include but are not limited to:

• group instant messaging and voice chat
• three meeting space templates
• Upload and share files for presentations, product strategy, discussion
• Seating area with presentation viewers
• Tools to enhance brian storming

A 3D Collaborative space is essentially another version of the telephony or conference bridge.  You know the deal, your organisation gives you a telephone number and pin number and you can set up a call instantly and invite colleagues, customers and business partners to a shared voice chat at the drop of a hat.

Very useful.

Instant messaging and Voip through the desktop has the same sort of requirements.  I can instant message whoever I want at any time (assuming they are available).  If we look at corporate instant messaging tools such as Lotus Sametime and CoolMessenger these tools allow users to have group instant messaging chat “rooms”.  So, instant messaging is on par with the conference bridge because I can use my voice to collaborate.

If we look at the development of instant messgaing solutions then we see that we can start to initiaite an instant messaging chat session irrespective of the application you are using at that time.  This applies to desktop apps, OpenOffice, Symphony, MS Office, Goggle Docs, but it also includes websites, health applications etc.   Should we assume that any 3D collaboration solution will deliver the same capabilities?  This would mean that I would be able to intiate a 3D collaboration session at any time from any device and  application.

The question arises, how will 3D collaboration virtual rooms differ from instant messaging chat rooms with VoIP and web conferencing?  When we use the instant messaging tools we may start with an instant messaging chat session.  We may then realise that we need to involve more people so we invite others and we intiate a group chat session. We may want to stop typing and actually speak to each other so we use VOIP (Voice) and finally we might add web conferencing capabilities where we need to share and interact with documents.

In summary a simple instant messaing escalation path is:

1. one to one instant messaging chat session (we may use a webcam)
2. group instant messaging chat room
3. instant messaging moves into VoIP
4. full blown web conference with application sharing capabilities

When should we dip into 3D collaboration?  At which point is it appropriate to use your avatar?  I don’t claim to know the answers but for or each of the questions above lets see is we can identitfy the value of 3D collaboration.

1. one to one instant messaging chat session Vs 3D Collaboration

I want to talk directly with someone so I start a 3D chat – I see my colleagues avatar in an application window on my desktop and we chat using Instant messaging or we chat using voip.

Benefits of 3D Collaboration:

• I get a good visual of my colleague
• Assuming they employ gestures I get a better sense of their thoughts and feelings
• If we use voice to communicate in the 3D environment then we are free to control our avatar and enjoy a more immersive experience.

Costs of 3D Collaboration:

• time to start a 3D collaborative environment
• if we are using instant messaging and then spending time controlling our avatar we may not be looking at the screen so miss some of the gestures
• for a 15 second communication instant messaging should be used. However, if 3D collaboration becomes the defacto we may be actually wasting time using a 3D interface rather than a plain text interface.

My Comment #1

#1

I thnk companies are betting (see my post on Prediction Markets) that the defacto interface over the next 5-7 years will be via a virtual world 3D collaborative interface.   There is an asusmption that using 3D tools will become second nature or that this obsticle  to using them will be overcome so that it ceases to be a problem.  I hesitate to use the phrase virtual reality but the idea that my mouse is able to provide feedback to me, warm / cold and smooth / rough may help us with removing the barrier for using these new tools for the masses.

2. group instant messaging chat room Vs 3D Collaboration

Benefits of 3D Collaboration:

• We get a better sense of the groups dynamics
• We are able to use tools such as brain storming board to guide the conversation
• We can use more visuals, presentations and 3d objects to assist us in our explanations and discussions

Costs of 3D Collaboration:

• The overhead for people to use the tools effectively so that they are not a burden on the conversation.
• At the point a 3D image is displayed to the group participants but the communication medium is instant messaging – potentially too much for the user to manage – keyboard (typing) and Avatar (movement & gestures)

My comment #2

#2

The move to 3D collaboration is a going to be a big change.  Once organisations move over to 3D Collaboration there may be a desire for all information to be delivered through that medium.  The user experience is a quantum leap above the one delivered through a well designed web portal.   3d Collaboration is a distruptive technology for all desktop applications.  I would expect all SaaS applicationproviders to start to look at how they can deliver their products / tools via a 3D medium.

3. instant messaging moves into VoIP through the desktop Vs 3 D Collaboration

Benefits of 3D Collaboration:

• Participants are free to control their avatar and use other virtual world related tools e.g. search, camera, scripts, collaboration room controls
• Delivers an imersive experience which may improve the level of collaboration and communication (engagement)

Costs of 3D Collaboration:

• May be difficult to multitask while engaged in a 3D collaborative meeting.  During group chat sessions or telephone calls individulas are free to interact with email, web pages etc, while this is possible within the 3D client there is a need to use gestures.  (#3)
• Not enough automated 3D status settings that are universally accepted

My Comment #3

#3

3D collaboration rooms need to redefine an individuals status.  Instant messaging status messages are typically

1. I am away,
2. I am available,
3. In a meeting
4. Do not disturb.

Some automation is possible within Instant Messaging tools e.g the status message changes to “In a meeting” when the user is on the phone and the staus changes to “I am Away” if the keyboard hasn’t been touched for a set time period tpically ten minutes.  Lets have a quick look at defining the 3D Collaboration equivilant of status messages

• I am away = the avatar is stationary in a prone position (hunched forward in Second Life’s case)
• I am available = the avatar is nodding its head and making appropriate (automatic) hand gestures
• In a meeting = The avatar has a visual effect effect e.g. swirling on the clothes the avater is wearing
• Do not disturb = The avatar is red

If we are in a corprate and immersive environemnt we may want settings for

• “The Avatar is looking at email”
• “The Avatar is surfing the Web”
• “The Avatar is discussing with anothor Avatar in the meeting / outside the meeting” e.g. backchat in Sametime Unyte sessions
• “The Avatar is onthe phone”

We could define many more, the point is that these status changes will need to be somewhat automatic.

4. full blown web conference with application sharing capabilities Vs 3 D Collaboration

Benefits of 3D Collaboration:

• Once we are within the 3D construct and we have access to the approriate tools e.g. slideshow, doc sharing, voip, application sharing etc the experience becomes more immersive than the exisitng one delivered by Sametime Unyte and Webex. (#4)
• All the tools required during this form of collaboration are avaialble from a single point of access

Costs of 3D Collaboration:

• Struggling to think of some good costs…other than Cost ($), ability and comfort to use tools,

Comment #4

#4

What is the value of “immersive”.  I have used immersive a few times in this post but without any clear definition of the “value”.  I don’t have any research to support the following statements but it would seem that if I have voice, sound and a rich and simulating 3D image that I am interacting with then I become immersed in the reality that is being presented to me.  This is true for computer games e.g. Grand Theft Auto and it is / will be true for 3D collaboration.  When I say immersive I am actually meaning “engaged”.  The users of 3D collaborative spaces are more engaged and focused on the material that is presented to them if we compare with the standard instant messaging, group chat and web conferencing software that is universally available today.

Summary

I went through the analysis above to try and work out when we should use 3D collaboration tools for collaboration.  There is value in using it all the time and there is value in using it for a subset of activities e.g. teaching, team discussion, sharing, presentations.

I believe that 3D collaboration has the potential to be the de-facto manner in which we (humanity) interact with information, content and each other.   Whether this actually happens depends on many variables but the increasing uncertainty in the economies of the world drives a desire to reduce travel and training and costs. This may be the lever that pushes 3D collaboration more into the fore otherwise 3D collaboration will be used for niche activities and may well be described as a fad.