Figure 1. View from the stage. Note the phantom audience in the background.
Theodor G Wyeld [HREF1], Lecturer, Information Environments Program, ITEE, [HREF2] , University of Queensland, Ipswich [HREF3], Queensland 4305. twyeld@itee.uq.edu.au
Researchers are beginning to explore the role of digital design collaboration within multi-user 3D virtual environments. In the latest installment of an ongoing remote digital design collaboration project with the Sydney University Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition (KCDC), the University of Queensland Information Environments Program (IEP) co-coordinated an online production of T. S. Eliot’s The Cocktail Party in a 3D virtual world environment. This paper describes the process and pedagogical outcomes of early learners collaborating remotely in digital 3D media.
Designing is an iterative process. In a traditional design practice –
such as architecture, engineering, industrial design, and so on – it relies
on the formation of collaborations with colleagues from within and external
to the firm (consultants, clients, and service providers; involving video,
audio, telephonics and the transfer of files such as email, text, CAD, animation,
VRML, among others). As design firms are globalising, potential design collaborators
increasingly consist of local and geographically remote partners. Traditionally,
design collaboration includes informal and formal meetings. Informal meetings
may take the form of chatting about problems (via telephone, email, or IRC),
while formal meetings occur when most partners gather in the same physical
location including: colleagues, clients, and consultants, although often
a phone or even video link-up to remote partners is used [4]. Of importance
to this study is the way inclusion of a 3D visualisation component usually
comes at the end of this process. It is largely seen as simply a tool and
not part of a social process. Its tool-like use is also emphasised over
the social in the approach taken by many researchers in the field of design
collaboration [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8].
On the other hand, collaboration is a process of socializing [7, 11, 12,
20] – an opportunity for collaborating partners to: get to know each other;
learn how to work together; and, discover what sort of support one can garner
from the other. This occurs with long term as well as short term goals in
mind: will the firm continue to work with these people in the future? Good
social relations often lead to future client referrals in both directions
[4, 12]. Despite this, most of the literature about 3D Collaborative Virtual
Environments (CVE’s) talk not in terms of its potential outcomes in the
design practice, rather they discuss: visualisation issues; real-time, multi-user,
3D interactive virtual environments (VE’s) providing a natural, more ‘intuitive’,
user interface – more closely aligned with natural perception; perspectively
corrected displays; visual acuity; hardware/software configurations; the
difficulty in recognising and manipulating virtual ‘objects’; whether to
use VR glasses (HMD), a cave, or a desktop PC, and so on [15].
What a CVE offers is the opportunity for participants to enter into a simulated
workplace, interact, and collaborate directly on a design project. Despite
this, 3D VE’s are still largely seen as rapid prototyping tools. VE immersion
tools such as: head-mounted display helmets (HMD’s); Computer Assisted Virtual
Environment (CAVE) typically incorporating a large, back-lit, screen, LCD
shutter glasses with position tracker, and a data wand or glove allowing
for interaction with the environment; ‘Round Table’ [17] object substitution
using optical projection glasses providing a stereo view of virtual objects
overlaid on physical objects; and the more specific CVE devices such as Jung
et al’s [14] VR Sketchpad and Gross’ [13] pattern-recognition software, and
so on. Few, if any, of these installations would be found in a typical design
practice. However, desktop PC’s are common. Hence, rudimentary 3D VE’s are
accessible.
While many claim that 3D VE’s are a key technology in enhancing the real
world by providing the tools for its virtual exploration [17], few address
the potential transformative outcomes of actively working in and with them.
Worldwide, the number of key centres for collaborative research which actively
investigate this emerging field is expanding (see Chalmers’ MediaLab, Sweden
[21]; MIT media lab, USA [22]; CASA, UCL, UK [23]; MiraLab, Switzerland
[24]; HitLab, USA [25]; Martin Centre CADLAB, UK [26]; Key Centre for Design
Computing and Cognition, Australia [27]; Information Environments Program,
Australia [28], among others). To test the efficacy of the various systems
developed, ongoing remote collaboration between and within design schools
has proven to be an invaluable data source [5, 8, 9].
As part of ongoing research into the efficacy of 3D VE’s to provide for
collaborative socialization this paper reports on its latest installment.
The remote digital design collaboration project described here was conducted
with the Sydney University Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition (KCDC)
and the University of Queensland Information Environments Program (IEP) (Brisbane).
Together we collaborated on an online performance of T. S. Eliot’s [10] The
Cocktail Party in a 3D virtual world environment (Active Worlds). Students
of design from both Sydney and Brisbane were engaged in a self-directed learning
exercise which focussed on using digital media to transform prior understandings
about what a 3D virtual environment (VE) can be used for. This paper discusses
the pedagogical outcomes of this process for the students from the Brisbane
campus. It adopts Guba and Lincoln’s [11] constructivist methodology to
support its participant-observer reflections. It extends earlier work done
from the University of Adelaide Digital Media Masters program that involved
a similar remote design collaboration exercise where students showcased
their digital animations in the 3D VE. In that project they embedded rich
media in deep media in a process of both working in and with the media [see
9].
The remote design collaboration project fits within the broader curriculum
themes of an introduction to digital technology and a design studio as part
of the first year of an undergraduate Multi-Media degree in the school of
Information Technology and Electronic Engineering, University of Queensland,
Australia. The technological issues revolved around constructing, hosting,
and acting in a 3D VE. The studio issues addressed the narratological themes
of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd-person narratives and their applicability within an
online 3D VE. Eliot’s The Cocktail Party was chosen because it presents
complex yet accessible social interactions in a series of short acts and
small spaces which were considered easy to reconstruct within the VE.
77 first-year Bachelor of Multi-Media students in 5 groups of 15-16 members
participated at the Brisbane campus with 30 second-year Design Computing
students in groups of 6 participating at the Sydney campus. The play was
divided into 5 acts which coincided with Eliot’s original combination of
acts and scenes. Each student brought their own skills and abilities to the
group collaboration where the various tasks and roles were negotiated.
Students came from diverse backgrounds – international students, interstate
students, and a range of ages 17-43. For many, English was a second language.
Their acculturation to digital media was equally diverse – from extensive
self-taught students, some already working in the multi-media industry coming
back to ‘upgrade’ their qualifications, to those with little exposure to
digital technology. Teams in Sydney and Brisbane were able to communicate
only via email, chat, and within the Active Worlds (AWs) environment. The
reflections expressed in this paper were drawn from my teaching journal,
conversations with students, email correspondence between collaborators,
chat logs from the AWs environment, and the students’ final project reports.
First, each group analysed the play. From this they were able to identify
all the props, stage settings, actors, roles, interactions, actions and
so on for the whole play and for their particular act. Second, tasks and
roles were negotiated within the local group and with their remote collaborators.
This involved email at first, followed by the transfer of prototype props
for insertion into the AWs environment.
Little collaboration takes place without the motive of a deadline, however.
Hence, most activity occurred towards the end of the project rather than
with early negotiation. Consistent across all groups also was the complaint
that communicating via email or chat was inferior to face-to-face or telephone
exchange. The fragmented nature of the medium means little detail is included
in communiqués, leading to further confusion. (Often detail is left
out of communiqués in the vain hope that this would speed the process
along. But, as communicating via email – the most extensively used media
– is asynchronous, replies are invariably executed in between unrelated tasks
which introduce delays of hours or even days). In response to the perceived
‘unacceptable’ variability and arbitrariness of email communication, remote
partners tended instead to work alone – only updating information as a courtesy,
if at all.
Despite this apparent lack of collaboration, ‘formal rehearsals’
(when I was present) and the final performance demonstrated a concise level
of collaborative understanding of the overall process. The ‘phantom’ audience
in Sydney contributed beforehand by applying their knowledge and skills
with the AW’s environment and during the performance by adopting an ancillary
narrative role – they relayed their visual and textual interpretation of
the various acts as they were being performed (see figure 1). (Phantom in
the sense that their ghostly presence gave few clues about their ‘real’ identities.
Brisbane participants were reliant on their Sydney partners to upload props
onto the AWs server). The pedagogical benefits of this process for the actors
and their entourage was immediate and tangible feedback in a rich learning
environment, which was also of their own making.
Figure 1. View from the stage. Note the phantom audience in the background.
Groups used their interpretations of the play’s script to re-construct
it [11] in a collaborative VE. Their interpreted re-constructions tended
to include elaborate imaginary spaces which borrowed heavily from pre-conceptions
about computer game settings. Scripts were prepared in advance in Word,
Excel, and Notepad text etc. These ‘texts’ were then simply cut and pasted
into the chat text field of the AWs interface at the appropriate times (see
figure 2).
Figure 2. Screen grab from Act 3 T. S. Eliot’s The Cocktail Party online.
To appeal to a modern audience, contemporisation of the script was used
extensively. This included SMS-style text (txt) messaging, chat jargon, and
emoticons (see figure 3). This ‘txting’ was further accentuated by movement
about the virtual ‘stage’ generating a dynamism not ordinarily experienced
in a less ‘structured’ VE encounter. (A less structured VE is one where
users interact without purpose, pedagogical or game-play motive – simply navigating
an interesting 3D virtual world). At times their recently acquired facility
with the technology saw them ‘working the audience’. In this way they were
identifying the various ‘layers’ of reality between: each other in the lab;
their agents in the VW; and, the phantom audience in Sydney, who’s only identification
came via chat messages. Oversized props were used to exaggerate the spatial
characteristics of the AWs forum – typical of computer game scaling.
Celia: y do u think u n Lavvy will get back??
Eddy: *shrugs*... i dunno
Celia: ahhh.. you don't know?
Eddy: i saw some guy at the party... he told me
Celia: who?
Eddy: I don’t no who he is. Just some random
Celia: what!! what did he say?
Eddy: dunno… stuff I guess. But after talking 2 him I
rekon me n lavinia still gotta
Eddy: chance
Julia.: Hey u 2. This is all I can do. Anyway lets make
a toast.
Celia: well, what did he say?
Eddy: ok... to who?
Julia.: Your aunt of cause! Lol ;-)
Celia: hmmm......
Eddy: uhhh…. sure..o_0
Julia.: Well anyway, let’s all go out and eat.
Eddy: *toasts to fake aunt*
Eddy: thanx... but no thanx
Celia: sure.. i'll meet up with you in a minute
Julia.: Okies!! Buh bye
Eddy: ta taa
Celia: cya
Figure 3. Chat showing contemporisation of play using SMS-style ‘txting’.
According to Bruckman [16] when using digital collaborative software,
cultural differences in perception of the technology used and the social
and institutional context within which the technology is situated should
be foreground. The co-evolution of technology and pedagogy within a CVE should
emphasise the social and cultural influences on and of technology. Hence,
adopting Guba and Lincoln’s [11] constructivist methodology, a series of
short questions was asked of each group following their final performances.
Their responses were then negotiated as a class in an iterative process until
consensus was achieved on agreed meanings. The outcomes of this process indicated
that:
Figure 4. ‘Virtual actors’ using non-verbal gesturing to compliment the
accompanying textual communication.
Through the vicarious experiences of the students engaged in this exercise
we can construct a pedagogy that recognises the need for collaboration (both
local and remote). To this end the 3D VE described here provided a vehicle
for its exploration.
In broad terms, we can speculate that such a system could be used in a
design practice to facilitate remote design collaboration. However, it is
not clear that it would support, let alone enhance, the socialization which
is a key component of any collaboration. Nevertheless, it could be used
as an adjunct to other methods of communication to at least provide for
an environment where direct, interactive, and shared, design actions can
take place.
[1] Mitchell, W. J., Yee, S., Naka, R., Morozumi, M.,
and Yamaguchi, S., 1998, The Kumamoto-Kyoto-MIT Collaborative Project: A
Case Study of the Design Studio of the Future, in Streitz, N. A.,, et al
(Eds), “Cooperative Buildings, Integrating Information, Organisation, and
Architecture”, in Proceedings of the First International Workshop, CoBuild'98,
Darmstadt, Germany, February 1998, pp. 80-93.
[2] Richens, P., and Trinder, M., 1999, “Exploiting the
Internet to Improve Collaboration between Users and Design Team: The Case
of the New Computer Laboratory at the University of Cambridge”, in CAAD
Futures 99, Atlanta, June.
[3] Oxman, R., 1999, Visual Emergence in Creative Collaboration,
in Brown, A., Knight, M., and Berridge, P., (Eds.), Architectural Computing:
from Turing to 2000, proceedings of eCAADe17, Liverpool, England, pp.357-363.
[4] Martin, D and Sommerville, I, 2004, Patterns of Cooperative
Interaction: Ethnomethodology and Design, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction, Vol. 11. No. 1., March 2004, pp59-89.
[5] Maher, M.L., 1999, “Designing the Virtual Campus
as a Virtual World”, in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL99),
pp 376-382.
[6] Benford, S., Fahlen., Greenhalge, C., and Bowers,
J., 1994, Manageing Mutual Awareness in Collaborative Virtual Environments,
in Procedings of ACM SIGCHI conference on “Virtual Reality and Technology”
(VRST '94) August 23-26th Singapore, ACM press.
[7] Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., and
Scharff, E., 2000, “Transcending the Individual Human Mind—Creating Shared
Understanding through Collaborative Design,” in ACM Transactions on Computer-Human
Interaction (ToCHI) Vol. 7. No. 1, March 2000, pp84-113.
[8] Maher, M.L., Liew, P-S, Gu, N., Ding, L. (2003) An
Agent Approach to Supporting Collaborative Design in 3D Virtual Worlds,
in Dokonal, W. and Hirschberg, U. eds, eCAADe21 Digital Design (Proceeding
of eCAADe 2003), Graz University of Technology, Austria, pp47-52.
[9] 2003, Bruton, D., and Wyeld, T. “Media Rich Virtual
Environments,” in proceedings of ANZAScA2003, 37th annual conference of
the Australian and New Zealand Architectural Science Association, University
of Sydney, Australia.
[10] Eliot, T. S., 1962, “The Cocktail Party”, in Collected
Plays, Faber & Faber, London.
[11] Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S, 1989, Fourth Generation
Evaluation, Sage Publications, USA, England, India.
[12] Schon, D. A., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner,
Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York.
[13] Gross, M. D., 1995, "Indexing Visual Databases of
Designs with Diagrams", in Koutamanis, A., Timmermans, H., and Wermeulen,
I. (eds), Visual Databases in Architecture, Avebury, Aldershot, pp1-14.
[14] Jung, T., Gross, M. D., and Do, E., Y-L., 2001,
“Space Pen: Annotation and Sketching on 3D Models on the Internet”, in de
Vries, B., van Leeuwen, J., and Achten, H., (eds), Proceedings of the international
CAAD Futures conference, 8-11 July 2001, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp.258-270.
[15] Azuma, R., 1997, A Survey of Augmented Reality,
in Presence, Vol. 6, No. 4, ed. Barfield, W, Feiner, S., Furness, I., and
Hirose, M., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp355-385.
[16] Bruckman, Amy. 2004 "Co-Evolution of Technological
Design and Pedagogy in an Online Learning Community." To appear in Designing
Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Editors: Sasha Barab, Rob,
and James Gray. Cambridge University Press.
[17] Broll, W., Meier, E., and Schardt, T., 2000, “The
Virtual Round Table: a Collaborative Augmented Multi-User Environment”,
in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Collaborative Virtual
Environments, pp39-45.
[18] Guye-Vuilleme, A., Capin, T. K., Pandzic, I. S.,
Thalmann, N. M., and Thalmann, D., 1996, Nonverbal Communication interface
for Collaborative Virtual Environments, in Proceedings of Computer Animation
’96, IEEE Computer Society Press, June 1996, pp58-67.
[19] Argyle, M., 1988, Bodily Communication, New York:
Methuen & Co.
[20] Fischer, G., 2005, “Social Creativity: Making All
Voices Heard”, in proceedings of Human Computer Interaction International
Conference (HCII), Las Vegas, July 2005 (in press).
CVE Labs:
[21] MediaLab, Chalmers, Sweden; http://www.ckk.chalmers.se/
[22] MIT media lab, USA; http://www.media.mit.edu/
[23] CASA, UCL, UK; http://www.casa.ucl.ac.uk/
[24] MiraLab, Switzerland; http://miralabwww.unige.ch/
[25] HitLab, USA; http://www.hitl.washington.edu/
[26] MartinCentre CADLAB, UK; http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/research/
[27] KCDC, Australia; http//www.arch.usyd.edu.au/kcdc
[28] IEP, Australia; http://www.infenv.itee.uq.edu.au/