wonderwebby

I was in a meeting tonight in Secondlife with my colleagues on the other side of the Earth,  when we had a strange, weapon-bearing but ultimately harmless avatar turn up. He eventually got bored (we had voice, he didn’t) so he left and we continued our meeting which otherwise – went well.

Funny, we were wondering what might have happened in real life if that type of person turned up to a kinda private meeting in a public place. In the back of your mind, you realise other people *might* turn up and interrupt  in such an arena – but you don’t tend to anticipate a vampire dropping by mid-sentence.

This topic came up in presentation today also, around behaviour of avatars in SL. I realise this is probably discussed a lot amongst sociologists observing SL participants, but I wonder what Secondlife would be like if nobody had a “secret identity”? At work, we have a way of (generally) knowing the real identity of our colleagues and people pretty much behave On social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn most people use their real identity (or at least near enough). People can be whoever they like on blogs and forums and can cause some grief through their anonymous handles. I have talked before briefly about the Virtual Munchausen syndrome where people create fictitious disorders or illnesses (I even saw a virtual suicide once on a forum) and it amazes me that some people just get their kicks out of causing grief. A bit like the prank calls we made as kids (imagine Bart Simpson getting his hands on Homer’s avatar! heh heh)

What do you think SL would be like if people had no chance to hide? What if Jane Doe was Jane Doe? Would the rules of engagement be the same? Or would we see a completely different (and even kinder) virtual world altogether?

Hi there – have moved over from another blogger site. So here are some brief ramblings on interactive narrative and immersive environments:)

A virtual world is restricted only by your imagination. If you want to engage people in the experience of your brand, your need to provide an environment that demands exploring within the context of a compelling motive or narrative. In other words, create something fun, something unusual, something I want to look at a little longer. Give me a reason to be there, tell a story, weave a web of intrigue into the experience. Lead me into a metaphorical maze.

Once you have done that, consider the social and collaborative nature of virtual worlds, and ask yourself if the experience you present provides a social atmosphere. Not literally, I don’t want to sit at a bar in SL! Ask yourself if your landscape creates a dynamic talking point for the user, does it lend itself to an intimate (not sleazy, I mean *friendly*) atmosphere. Where is the joy of use? Build some easter eggs in the landscape to surprise your visitors. Half the fun of social interaction in SL is the path of discovery.

Finally, ask yourself the very important “so what?” question.
eg I have created a building just like my real business and you can go inside and sit at a table “so what?”

What else do you think makes an immersive virtual world experience?

Is it just me or does there seem to be a storm of activity happening on Facebook right now by Secondlife-ers? People who were connecting on SL groups are (re)creating groups in FB and learning even more about one another, sharing family photos, playing with friend-wheels etc
My theory – networking within Secondlife at present is very limited. Networking could be(is?) a huge drawcard for virtual worlds. There is more talk about the funky aspects of VW than the social collaboration possibilities. Facebook offers a visual display “who’s who” with far more transparency.

Imagine if :
* groups in FB and Groups in SL(or other VW) were connected with one interface.
* within FB I could see if somebody was online in-world and connect.
* within SL I could click on a profile and not only “friend” but see my friend’s friends in FB, and connect with them.

Methinks a Virtual Faces application will be coming soon!
And please, why doesn’t Facebook have an option for Friends vs Networks? Privacy filtering is icky.

Recent posts by Luis Suarez on making Enterprise2.0 matter and another by Jeremiah Owyang on Facebook have got me thinking about the new transparency requirement organisations now need to consider. Right now employers have a choice of walling in employees, blocking access to streaming media, blogs, Facebook, virtual worlds(VWs) and even instant messaging.
So what does productivity really mean? Should organisations be thinking more about the need to teach time and technology management to their employees, rather than fencing them in?
I am a big believer in the value of sharing knowledge. Iron sharpens iron, as they say. The value within “social capital” will become enormous and I believe IT departments will soon bow down to pressure from employees and managers alike. It might be a choice now, but will it become a demand – a right – from the next generation?
Collaborative social networks of wikis, blogs, virtual worlds are facilitating real time knowledge sharing. I just look at the small group of VW bloggers I am now following in twitter (and now Facebook) and the type of ambient knowledge collective it offers. What if my friends started to embrace these technologies also? What difference would it make to their relationships, their projects, their customers?
I think one day we will see a far more transparent social dynamic enter the workforce. Less demand on intranets, more focus on social networking using web2.0 groups as the benefits of collaboration are realised.