Is augmented reality the new QR code?

A few weeks ago, I saw this title to an article "Augmented reality is the new QR code" and before I even read the article I had a sinking feeling in my stomach. Although the article is more of a feel-good piece about how augmented reality is usurping QR codes, let's be honest...how many QR codes were actively being used that are now being made obsolete?

I realize that I'm running the risk of ruining my "crazy emerging tech for learning girl" reputation, but I've been here before and I've learned some lessons. When a new technology starts looking for a problem to solve, it better solve that problem elegantly and quickly or the technology faces a pretty uncertain destiny.

Yes, I'm talking about you, virtual worlds...

I love innovation and I love experimenting with the potential of new technologies. I have been known on more than one occasion to quote the catchy adage that Henry Ford probably never said: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." I'm not about to rally against innovation. What I have a problem with is people making up issues to solve just because a new technology is on the scene.

I encountered this often when I was working in pharmaceutical sales training. You may (or may not?) be surprised at how often new medical conditions were marketed because a pharmaceutical company created a molecule that could treat it. Restless leg syndrome? Social anxiety disorder? While these conditions are certainly extreme enough to warrant treatment in some patients, I often questioned the threshold at which pharmaceutical intervention is warranted. No drug has zero side effects and any time we take medication, we are making the choice that the impact of the treatment outweighs the cost to our bodies. 

The same is true, albeit typically with less life and death impact, with new technologies introduced for learning. The issue with virtual worlds, to over simplify and grossly generalize, was that they were a new social communication tool that could address issues that no other technology could address as well, but the cost and learning curve were too steep to make virtual worlds a good investment of time and resources. Virtual worlds never tipped the cost: benefit ratio in their favor. 

Neither did QR codes. 

And now, although I am encouraged when I see augmented reality examples like IKEA that make total sense, I wonder if augmented reality will suffer the same fate. Is there enough of a need for us to augment reality, once the novelty wears off? Do we need reality to be more real and richly informed? How will our brains adapt to processing a new layer of sensory data over our already sensory-overloaded experiences in the "real" world? 

Innovation works when a need is filled in a new and intuitive way. We want things faster, easier and better. We want things that are social. We want things that only require incremental changes to our existing habits. We want things that help us achieve our goals or satisfy our basic human needs. We want things that help us solve our problems. 

If a new technology doesn't do these things, it won't achieve mainstream adoption. So come on, augmented reality...you're definitely "oooh! shiny!"...now show me what else you've got. 

Live events still rock & thoughts on the future of virtual events

Over the past week I attended two very different live events that epitomized where virtual events need to go in order to gain more widespread acceptance.

Geeks Celebrating Their Geekiness

The lovely Pamela Kucera & I geeking out

Last Friday, I attended the Philly Geek Awards, conceived and hosted by Geekadelphia and featuring awards for all kinds of local geek-related activities: tech start ups, film making, comic art, blogging, podcasts, viral videos, geek fashion, art, science, app development, game development...really, a veritable smorgasbord of geekery. There were mentions of Star Wars, Star Trek, Game of Thrones, and bacon (lots of mentions of bacon). At one point, a furry accepted an award. Besides the furry, let's just say I was with my people. It was a black-tie event, the equivalent of a geek prom. It was a blast.

Cosplay Kids Category Winners at BCC

On Sunday, I attended the Baltimore ComicCon. This is the 3rd year I've attended, and it continues to be my favorite of the ComicCons (no, I haven't been to San Diego) because of the emphasis on the writers and artists. I got to see Anthony and Conor from Kill Shakespeare, peek behind the big black curtain to glimpse Stan Lee, chat with the writer/artist for one of my son's favorite kids graphic novelists, and see more cosplay than I need to for the entire year.


What do both of these events have in common? They bring together busy communities for an opportunity to bond.

Granted, both of these events focused on people in creative industries...industries full of innovators, entrepreneurs and creators. They provided an opportunity for people who busy themselves making things a chance to look around and see what their peers are making. There is immeasurable value in that...in lifting up your head from your own work and seeing the success, hearing about the trials and failures, of others. I loved being a part of these events because they inspire me to look at my own goals and dream bigger.

Can virtual events recreate that experience of allowing creatives and creators to talk, share, bond and inspire each other? Yes. But they need to reach beyond their own user groups.

Right now, the most successful virtual events are focused on the communities and people engaged in virtual events. No surprise there, really, and its encouraging to see people eating their own dog food. But as a designer, I think about how these technologies could enable the extension of the communities that gather in person for events like the Philly Geek Awards and ComicCon on an ongoing basis. I don't think the live events will go away, nor do I want them to, but I see potential in extending out the connections made, information shared, and inspiration disseminated at these events on a more consistent and ongoing basis. We're not just a community for an annual event...we're a community all year round. We're not a community when we're face-to-face, we're a community that exists in interest and common goals no matter where we are.

Virtual worlds and event platforms can enable that type of interaction whenever you need it, not isolated to the scheduled dates and times. Pervasive community interaction already takes place in 2D tools like Facebook, but it doesn't capture the feeling of presence and engagement that 3D environments provide. It's really not possible to have a Facebook "event" and Twitter, although it provides the opportunity for live chats, is lacking the visual sharing that is such an integral part of creative communities.

Consider this a challenge to my creative friends. We push the boundaries and pride ourselves in creating new things. Shouldn't we be the ones to embrace the most progressive technologies for establishing and growing our communities?

Coming in 2012: Immersive Learning Design (my first book!)

It's official!

As I type this, my book contract with ASTD is in the post and I'm mentally preparing for the next few months of writing my first book to be published next year: Immersive Learning Design.

I've been blogging since starting Tandem Learning, I've written articles about the many shades of immersive learning (games, simulations, virtual worlds), and I've presented at more conferences than I could easily count. But a book is a different level of reflection for me and I am thrilled to have the opportunity to take on the challenge of documenting what I actually *do.*

The goal of the book is three-fold:

• define immersive learning as a category of design that incorporates elements of games, simulations, virtual worlds and other immersive technologies, 
• describe the design process for immersive learning experiences and differentiate immersive design from traditional instructional design, and
• detail examples of how organizations have been applying immersive learning design to address business issues and corporate learning needs.

I'm sure as I get deeper into the weeds of writing, I'll be posting more about the book, asking questions of others who specialize in immersive learning design, and recruiting organizations who are willing to share their stories of immersive learning design implementations. In the meantime, I'm gonna start limbering up my typing fingers!

Virtual worlds 2.0: don't call it a comeback

It's not just my gut that's been telling me that virtual worlds are emerging from the Trough of Disillusionment and moving into the Slope of Enlightenment on Gartner's Hype Cycle.

On the corporate front, I've just finished up Phase 1 of a consulting engagement focused on developing an organizational adoption plan for a large, global company that is utilizing a virtual world platform as an emerging tool for delivering immersive learning and fostering collaboration and idea sharing among employees spread around the world. It is extremely encouraging to see companies moving out of the "technology implementation" stage and into the "organizational implementation" stage; this signifies a movement of virtual worlds out of the IT departments and into human resources, training, and other departments focused on internal communication. Organizations who have been thinking about or starting to implement virtual worlds have spent a lot of time focused on getting the technology to work and integrate with their existing corporate systems for the past two years; we're moving out of that focus now and into questions of how virtual worlds can best be leveraged. That's an exciting trend for those of us who've been focused on immersive design and how virtual worlds can support different communication and collaboration dynamics.

Another sign that virtual worlds are headed for mainstream adoption are emerging best practice examples of their use for training and learning. Just today, Proton Media announced a partnership with PPD to develop a Virtual Clinical Trial training solution. I've been working with clients recently on virtual preceptorships, virtual apprenticeships, and developing virtual sales territories. There are more and more conversations emerging of using these "mirror worlds" for realistic practice and this trend will continue.

Aaron Silvers blogged this week about his experience at GameTech 2011 where there was more talk about virtual worlds than games. In February, Aaron and I had talked about the current state of virtual worlds  at TechKnowledge 2011 (where I had presented two sessions on virtual worlds for learning). I had been arguing that they were re-emerging from a lag in interest and I think his observations on GameTech confirm that in the government, virtual worlds are certainly garnering renewed attention as a learning tool.


Earlier this week I did a quick search for "virtual worlds" on my blog and found that in the last three years, I've written 32 blog posts related to virtual world topics. I was pretty surprised. Although I've spent a lot of time thinking and speaking about immersive learning design since starting this blog, I don't think I realized how much I'd actually written down. In December 2009, I wrote a post titled "Virtual World 2.0...a few humble predictions" where I made some assumptions about the emerging characteristics of virtual worlds that would lead them to mainstream adoption. I did pretty good on my prediction scorecard:

• Browser-based: almost all virtual worlds are moving in this direction, with minimal plug-ins and more consistent web navigational standards
• Less user-generated content: the most successful serious virtual worlds have provided packaged experiences (eg. Protosphere, VenueGen, web.alive, VastPark)
• Open source: OpenSim continues to strengthen and expand its reach
• Integration with other tools (mobile, augmented reality, existing workplace systems like Sharepoint): this has happened on many levels and in different ways across platforms, but the system integration features may be the key to pushing virtual worlds to mainstream adoption
• More seamless user-experience and navigation: point-and-click navigation is practically standard in the most popular serious virtual worlds. Oh, and have you seen Kinect?

Virtual worlds have been moving through a natural evolution and are beginning to emerge as a valuable tool in corporate and government learning, communication, and collaboration. Our thinking now needs to evolve as well; its no longer a question of if, but when. For organizations who understand this, the real question is, "how can you prepare to successfully adopt and integrate immersive and experiential learning?" 

Augmented Reality Games, Alternate Reality Games, and the Future of Learning

Watch live video from RELATE Live! on Justin.tv

Thank you to Rick Zanotti and Terrence Wing for inviting me to speak today on #elearnchat. You can check out the video here...including our "prep" session at the beginning! 

Tandem Learning Innovation Community: 1st event recap

Just a quick post to thank everyone who attended our first official Tandem Learning Innovation Community event. We hosted the event on our new Second Life island and I'd encourage all of you who were unable to make it to stop by any time and take a tour. The island is open and public; we'd be happy to share the space with any member of the TLIC who'd like to run a meeting in SL. Feel free to contact me if you'd like a guided tour or assistance in how to work our browser displays.

I can't thank Earth Primbee (SL name, for those not in-world) enough...he did a fantastic job building the island to suit our needs, and he completed the entire build in just a few days. Amazing. He also served as tech support and transcriptionist during the event. Big kudos on an amazing job and for all of his help!

We had about 15 attendees for our first event, ranging from people in academia, corporate training, consultants and designers/developers. Although we kept the event informal, we spent some time doing introductions and talking about topics we'd like to see discussed in future TLIC events before letting people explore the island. 

One of the topics discussed was what new technologies community members would be interested in learning about through TLIC events. Suggestions included:

• OpenSim
• Unity3D
• Alternate reality games (ARGs)
• Jibe
• Augmented reality
• Geolocation technologies

The consensus was that community members would be more interested in hearing about case studies in future events than in seeing new technology demos. We also discussed what major issues organizations are facing in implementing new technologies. The major issues raised included:

• access to the technologies (firewalls, hardware, etc.)
• interface design issues 
• ease of use

It was great to see our friends in avatar form and meet new community members who provided great feedback and insight. Plans are already underway for our next event and we're looking forward to some additional announcements to the community in the next few weeks. 

In the meantime, we'd love to hear your thoughts on what new technologies you'd like to find out more about and what types of programming for future events would be of interest to you!

Announcing the 1st Tandem Learning Innovation Community event!

We are pleased to announce the first, official Tandem Learning Innovation Community event scheduled for Friday, August 27th, 2010 at 9:00 am SLT/ 12:00 pm EST. We’ll be hosting an open house on our new Second Life island. The official networking event, led by Koreen Olbrish (SL: Nina Sommerfleck), will be an informal discussion of community topics, including:

• New technologies for the TLIC to explore
• Major challenges in technology adoption for the community to address
• TLIC at DevLearn 2010 – call for interested parties to be showcased

Please let us know if you plan to attend by emailing Jedd Gold via linkedin or at jedd.gold@tandem-learning.com. We will be sending out the SLURL the day before the event to everyone who RSVP’s.

If you haven't yet joined the Tandem Learning Innovation Community, you can request to join here.

We are looking forward to seeing you there!

ThinkBalm Innovation Community becomes the Tandem Learning Innovation Community

After we broke the news that we planned to disband the ThinkBalm Innovation Community, members of the community expressed lots of interest in finding new leadership for the community moving forward. We are excited to announce that effective immediately, Tandem Learning will assume the community management responsibilities of the newly named Tandem Learning Innovation Community.

The value of this community is in the membership and the collective wisdom and experience of the group, and Tandem’s focus on new technology, user experience, learning design, and strategic business innovation allows them to touch on the areas of interest that bind our community together. We believe the leadership at Tandem is committed to maintaining the integrity of the community while finding new and exciting ways to add value to everyone who participates.

Exciting times are ahead for all of us and we’re looking forward to what happens next!

Erica Driver, co-founder and principal, ThinkBalm
Sam Driver, co-founder and principal, ThinkBalm


We’re so pleased to have the opportunity to continue the amazing work that Erica and Sam began in 2008 as we assume responsibility for the newly deemed Tandem Learning Innovation Community. While we know many of you from our work in virtual worlds and immersive technologies, we’re looking forward to interacting with all of you in the weeks ahead as we plan for the future of the community. In our new role as the community managers, we will honor the tenants of the community as established under ThinkBalm and will seek even more ways to bring value to our members. Please feel free to contact me directly with your thoughts, ideas, and feedback...this community belongs to all of us and it’s your input that will continue to make it valuable and successful.

Koreen Olbrish, CEO, Tandem Learning
Koreen.olbrish@tandem-learning.com

Even more change in the virtual worlds industry

I was a little surprised and saddened to hear today that Erica Driver from ThinkBalm has taken a marketing position for a software company and will no longer be serving as an analyst for the immersive technologies market. Her departure is a blow to a much needed role in the virtual worlds industry: independent data and research on the use of immersive technologies. In addition, the closing of the ThinkBalm Innovation Community leaves a gap the development of users groups and a community that can share best practices.

In any emerging market, start ups lead with ideas and as the industry matures and the market becomes established, start ups grow, fade away, or get bought up by larger companies who want to enter the market. We've been seeing these changes over the last few years in immersive technology companies, but it seems the services companies are the ones that have taken the hardest hit from the snail's pace of immersive technology adoption.

Erica is a bright star in the virtual worlds industry and I very much valued and trusted the work that she was doing on behalf of all of us to evangelize immersive technologies and virtual worlds for enterprise use. I wish her and Sam the best of luck.

And now, the onus is on us to continue the good work they were doing.

Virtual worlds industry changes and what it means for learning

A few things have happened over the last week that have been big news in the virtual worlds industry...but what does it all mean for learning?

First there were rumors, then there were the actual Linden Labs layoffs. From all accounts, it appears that the enterprise focus of Second Life is gone, at least as far as Linden Labs is concerned.

Next, Proton Media announced their partnership with IBM. Given they were already integrating with Microsoft, that definitely puts them in line to pick up where Second Life was leaving off.

And then this week (today actually!), Reaction Grid launched Jibe, which they describe as:

... unique among virtual world solutions, offering the ability to deploy under your own branding on your existing websites & blogs. It works in web browsers, desktop (Mac & PC), mobile devices like iPhone & iPad, and even game consoles.

So what does all of this conflicting information actually mean to us, enterprise proponents of virtual worlds for learning?

1. Despite the chicken littles out there, the sky is really not falling for virtual worlds. Probably not even for Second Life. Yes, maybe Second Life won't be the leading enterprise virtual world platform, but I've said from the start that Second Life isn't the best platform for learning and that's not what it was designed for anyway. The enterprise focus was a retro-fit, an attempt to capitalize on the obvious benefits of virtual worlds for collaboration and learning. But there were many more drawbacks than benefits of using Second Life for those purposes, and other virtual world technologies like Protosphere from Proton Media, Vastpark, and Teleplace have focused on overcoming the functionality deficits that Second Life had in addressing enterprise customers' needs.

2. We're moving towards the browser. In a year or so, any virtual world that isn't accessed via browser with no or minimal plug ins is probably not going to be viable.

3. Social networking will eventually move virtual worlds more mainstream, not business. Just like other social media technologies, virtual worlds will be successful when people see the social benefits and it doesn't seem like work. Right now, they are a lot of work. That will shift and will move virtual worlds as a much more viable enterprise learning tool. And since learning is social, it just makes sense, no?

4. Content and design are still the key. Virtual worlds will need well-designed and appropriate content to move forward. Reaction Grid's Jibe seems to be moving in that direction, allowing for learning affordances that haven't been seen in other platforms to date, or at least not all on one platform. It will continue to be the case that no matter how cool the tools and technologies are, that the content design and user experience will drive adoption. We're still woefully behind in the learning space in having great examples of appropriate virtual world content design. But we'll get there, or virtual worlds won't.


I'm encouraged by the recent news that change is coming for virtual worlds. I've been waiting for a shift, a big announcement or event that would throw virtual worlds into the limelight and drive adoption. What's more likely, based on the news of this past week, is that the little steps will keep accumulating, until we don't remember how we practiced things before we had avatars in virtual worlds.

The name of the game in virtual worlds? Monetization.

I'm at GDC (Game Developer's Conference) in San Francisco this week. Learning a lot, seeing some great, and some sketchy, sessions...I've only got the Summits & Tutorials pass, so I won't be able to comment on the regular conference sessions. They did away with the Virtual Worlds summit track this year, but they keep creeping into the other sessions. Lots on social gaming and mobile, and a bit hit or miss (but I think better) line up in the Serious Games summit track.

One initial observation? Much less discussion on design, unless of course you want to learn about design for monetization. Holy cats, I know people ultimately are in this to make some money, but the emphasis on the manipulation of players to convert them into paying customers, and if you're really lucky, subscribers, has been downright depressing. The session on what social gaming can learn from virtual worlds featured "Hangout" which is evidently a new teen world, and initially, primarily targeted to girls. It reinforced every superficial stereotype of young women that the media perpetuates, and it was described with such a casualness that everyone may have missed that it was a soulless vehicle to pander to the media bias that the most important things to teenage girls are clothes and boys. SIGH.

The best session I attended so far was by Eric Ries, who talked about the ecstasy and agony of being a start up, and provided two really interesting case studies on virtual worlds start up companies There.com and IMVU. For those who don't follow these things, There.com just shut down yesterday and IMVU is one of the most successful (if you look at profitability and active users) virtual worlds. Main lesson learned? There.com followed the "rules" and it killed them...IMVU did the opposite and it's flying above the carcasses of other dying worlds.

On a positive note, met some great guys working on some virtual world stuff for enterprise that, if what they say is true, is going to turn some existing platforms on their ears. There are cool things on the horizon...stay tuned for when I can actually talk about it (after I see it and sign an agreement to what I can actually say...) but its about time that we had a browser-based platform for corporate uses that leverages other open API technologies, no?

Its a different vibe this year. It seems a lot smaller. It actually seems a lot quieter, and a bit more desperate. I learn the most at GDC of any conference I attend because seeing what is happening in the entertainment space helps shape how we are designing for corporate learning. We're bolstering our knowledge of ARGs (alternate reality games) and mobile learning through the sessions and technology featured here. But the unrelenting circle-back to "this is how you can make money" is starting to bother me. Good design in entertainment should lead to more customers...good design in training materials should lead to more informed, more educated, more highly skilled learners. Yes, tell me how you're designing for engagement...but not to get someone to push the "Pay" button.

Second Life Viewer 2...wow

If you've ever heard me speak about virtual worlds for learning, you've heard my mix of love and hate for Second Life. I love the openness, I love the freedom, I love the complexity...but it made it too complicated for most users. Navigation wasn't intuitive. Attrition rates after the first log in were atrocious. It didn't integrate with other technologies well. Frankly, for most people, it was just too hard.

I have friends in the virtual worlds industry who stood by Second Life. To be honest, I wasn't sure Linden Labs "got" that the same thing that made Second Life great was also the thing that was holding it back.

But yesterday, I tried out Viewer 2.

Yeah, here's where I take some of that back.

Sure, its still Second Life, with the prims and the rezzing. And no, the new viewer didn't magically fix security concerns or the (in my estimation, silly) worry about inappropriate content. But Viewer 2 tackles the usability issues head on, and makes Second Life a lot more digestible for a new user...and that, my friends, has been the biggest obstacle to virtual world adoption.

I don't want to detail all of the new features...you can find the write up here. I will say that little features like streamlined navigation, the improved search functionality, and the simplified menus help overcome a lot of the issues that new users faced in the previous interface. The embeddable media (audio! video! Flash!) makes me swoon. But the single biggest improvement in Viewer 2? It works like a web page. Its intuitive with minimal poking around. Its better designed for user experience.

And that's what makes all the difference. Game changer? Maybe. Gauntlet thrown? Definitely.

Why you should be Learning in 3D - Blog Tour Stop

It doesn't seem all that long ago that I got a call from Dr. Karl Kapp asking me if I'd mind being interviewed for his and Dr. Tony O'Driscoll's new book on virtual worlds for learning. When he told me that he wanted to talk to me about the future of virtual worlds, I have to admit, I was both excited and skeptical. Excited to be asked to talk about my grand visions of the potential of this technology I had been immersed in for the last few years, that I've tried to understand from the inside out. Skeptical that the enormity of the change that I envision, that what I really see as the future of virtual worlds, would reach far beyond what would be captured in this book. I had a real fear that after talking to me, Karl might just decide that my fanatical rantings were a bit of a bridge too far for what they wanted to achieve in writing what I knew would be the theoretical foundational text for virtual worlds for learning.

A few months later, I received the chapters I was quoted in for review. I was truly just scared to look. Again, I was caught in the delicate balance of hoping I didn't sound crazy and hoping that the book was portraying the future big enough. After doing the vanity scan, I got brave and read the preview chapters, Chapter 8: Steps to Successful Enterprise Adoption, and Chapter 10: Back to the Future.

There was good news on two fronts. I didn't sound crazy. I sounded like I was in good company.

What Karl and Tony have provided with Learning in 3D is the foundation for how learning in immersive environments happens, how different these learning environments and experiences are from other environments, and what that means to organizational learning--and structure. When people ask me where they should get started to learn about virtual worlds, I've never had a great answer...links to a variety of vendor sites, to blogs and to some of the people I follow on Twitter. Now I have an answer. This book is the first step.

What you might be surprised to learn is that one of my favorite sections of the book is actually Chapter 7: Overcoming Being Addled by ADDIE (#lrnchat rule: DRINK!). From my perspective, and granted its a biased one, one of the major barriers to successful immersive learning implementations is the lack of instructional designers who can effectively design appropriate content for these new environments. Kudos to Karl and Tony for not only acknowledging this, but beginning to tie together the granddaddy of instructional design process models with the skills and perspective of design needed for these new learning environments.

I'm honored and thrilled to have in some small way contributed to this book because, yes, they painted the big picture. They provided the rationale and issued the imperative. Learning in 3D provides the necessary background to understand not only why immersive learning environments are important, but the risk of not including them as part of your corporate learning strategy. The future is immersive, the future is contextualized, the future is empowered and engaged regardless of your physical location. The future of learning (at least part of it) is in 3D.

Buy your copy today and use the code L3D1 for a 20% discount.
Then check out the wiki or the Facebook fan page.

Do virtual world evangelists REALLY want them to go mainstream?

Happy new year, everyone. Looks like I'm gonna start 2010 with a rant...

A few weeks ago, I submitted a session on virtual worlds for the Enterprise2.0 conference in Boston this year. There were 465 proposals submitted, which I think is A LOT. When I submitted my session, I did a search to see how many other proposals related to virtual worlds had been submitted. Out of 465? Three. One on virtual events, one on how the military has used virtual worlds, and mine.

Even worse (and I could have a whole separate rant about the voting system), there's a community vote to get sessions included into the conference. You don't have to attend the conference to vote, just register on the site. Now, I can't vote for myself, and I know at least 8 or 9 of the people who voted for my session (including my mom)...and I've been pimping this session for the last few weeks on Twitter and Facebook. I have a lot of people involved in virtual worlds who've followed or friended me. Total votes for my session? 15.

Really??

Even if you think my session description was crap, hell, sign in and tell me and the rest of the world how bad it is. Better yet, propose your own session. I'm sure someday I'll be irritated by the number of people submitting competing sessions, but it would be a welcome change from virtual world sessions being less than 1% of submissions at a mainstream conference, when we should all be promoting this technology that we all talk about as the future of communication, collaboration, learning...

I've been in an interesting position in the learning space, being one of the only people who's been running around trying to talk about how virtual worlds could be leveraged for enterprise learning, one of the only people who has spent an ungodly amount of time in-world experimenting, studying motivation, pushing the technological capabilities, and getting to know all of the available platforms. I have attended and/or spoke at every virtual world conference I've known about for the last two years, I've met almost every other evangelist of serious virtual worlds. I love this technology, I love the vision and the excitement and the conviction of the people who use it and advocate for it. But I've come to a conclusion that really bothers me.

I think too many of the virtual worlds evangelists are actually virtual worlds snobs.

What happens when virtual worlds go mainstream? We lose control. We're no longer visionaries. We become the grumpy old timers who reminisce about the old days. Our specialness, our perspectives, our unique insights will be swallowed by the masses, who will commercialize and change and make mainstream what has been a fringe technology for so long.

But that's what we supposedly want, right? We want everyone to understand why we believe in and advocate for virtual worlds. We want people to realize their potential. We want to see amazing new innovations that spring from widespread adoption. We want standards and security and easy access. We want our parents to understand what we're talking about and for Oprah's avatar to broadcast her show from her island or grid. We want everyone to log in every morning and share a virtual coffee before teleporting to a meeting with their boss. We want everyone at our family reunions to actually "get" what we do.

Don't we?

Or are we all too busy talking to ourselves, preaching to the choir...and not REALLY evangelizing.

I don't know if my session will be included in the Enterprise2.0 conference, but I do know one thing. We should all be looking outside of our current virtual worlds circles if we want this technology to experience widespread adoption.

Unless we really don't.

My name is Koreen Olbrish and I am addicted to immersive environments

I'm going to admit something here, on my blog, that maybe only 1 or 2 people in my life actually know. I am addicted to immersive environments and games. Not tic-tac-toe or football, but role-playing games, the kind that immerse you in the storyline and engage you with your character in completing an objective, scoring points, and ultimately, winning.

It probably started when I was a little girl, when I was obsessed with fantasy stories like Lord of the Rings and The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. I read all of those books, read all of the Wizard of Oz series...anything that I could find that could transport me to another world. My mom used to take my books away from me in the summer and make me go out to play. In college, I was introduced to Dungeons and Dragons; I would spend whole weekends playing around the clock. I was finishing grad school when I worked at a camp for a summer and spent my days on the porch of the computer lab playing Magic the Gathering. And then, two years ago, I discovered Second Life.

No, its not a game. But I spent months and months in world, and now, in retrospect, I can see how it affected me and the people I love. I was working, yes, because I work in virtual worlds, but it went beyond that. I was truly immersed and it was impacting the rest of my life. After about 4 months, I started to ween myself out of my Second Life and re-engage with my real life. Its been a long process, and truly, the lure of games and immersive environments is still a constant pull (just this week I have been obsessed with Epic Pet Wars on my iPhone). But I've been managing to put down the laptop more and more.

And then last night. I got a 2 month subscription to World of Warcraft for Christmas. I was SO excited. I've been wanting to play WoW for a long time, and this was finally it! But...after spending two hours debating what race and class I would choose, I realized...I can't do this. I can't casually play RPGs and engage in immersive environments--they are an addictive lure to me. It also made more clear the reality behind the argument that a lot of people have against the use of virtual worlds: I don't have time. If I were to start playing WoW, I would want to really play. And that would require hours. Hours that I wouldn't be spending with my kids, hours that I wouldn't be working on my still relatively new business. I can't afford the time.

This is not to say that I don't want to play, or that I think there is anything wrong with people who choose to immerse themselves in MMOGs or virtual worlds. But I know what the trade offs are for me and so, I choose to battle my business competitors instead of Blood Elves and dance with my kids instead of Gnomes. But my pet sheep, BaadMaamaJaama, is level 16 in Epic Pet Wars. Just sayin' ;)

Virtual Worlds 2.0...a few humble predictions

I'm usually a big fan of bold predictions and grand visions of the future, maybe no more so than as they pertain to virtual worlds. I've thought, since the moment I first saw an avatar wandering through Second Life, that virtual worlds hold a promise for communication, collaboration, and learning that is uniquely different than any other technology.

But progress has been slow. The technology isn't quite elegant enough for widespread adoption and those of us who see the future have a difficult path to travel to convince the many naysayers armed with logical and reasonable objections to virtual worlds for serious applications. Its a small and quirky band of visionaries at this stage of virtual world adoption, and we all have our unique perspectives and area of focus. Obviously, my perspective has been from the side of content design, specifically for learning. But its given me a unique view, and ability to look across all of the virtual world technologies in the market and figure out what's working and what's not from a user experience and learning design perspective.

Yesterday, I read this blog post from Justin Gibbs, tweeted by @dshiao (thanks!), about the transition from virtual worlds 1.0 to 2.0. I agreed with Justin's take on the issues with the state of 1.0, but didn't really agree with his thoughts on vw2.0.

The thing is...I don't think we're at the transition to vw2.0 yet. And here's why...

The shift to 2.0 will occur when virtual worlds make a major transition, a technological breakthrough, that takes them mainstream. There are things happening now that will help that along (eg, browser-based technologies) but there are some major technology and user adoption issues that still have to be overcome. I'm actually NOT a believer that eventually virtual worlds will go "mainstream" in their current form. There will be a major change in how people view virtual worlds because of a big change in the technology. I think there are two current virtual world technologies that embody some of the future characteristics of virtual worlds 2.0: Vastpark and Multiverse. And there are two areas of technological innovation, augmented reality and mobile technology, that will be the catalysts to the 2.0 transition.

So here are my "bold" predictions for Virtual Worlds 2.0, and what will push the industry from 1.0 to 2.0:

• Virtual worlds will be browser-based and seamlessly integrate with the Internet. This will mean that logging into a virtual world will be as easy as logging onto a website, and your avatar will be consistent across different worlds. It will mean that virtual world content will be searchable, and will come up in Google search results (or whatever the kids are using when this all comes to pass). It will mean that there will be standards and a common programming language, like html, but for 3D content. This is where Vastpark is thinking, and I think its a brilliant and forward thinking strategy that could push the industry mainstream.
• Virtual worlds will rely less on user-generated content. The inception of virtual worlds was founded on "openness" and Second Life's success, and the bulk of their business model, is built on the development of community and experiences in an organic way from the residents themselves. It is really brilliant, on many levels, and an idea repeated in many 2.0 technologies today (eg, Twitter, Facebook). But the difference in virtual worlds is the visualness of the technology, the ability to develop contexts that someone can be immersed in. People have built beautiful 3D environments, and they are amazing to see. But then what do you do there? I just don't think we can rely on UGC to answer this question. We need to start thinking of appropriate design for this technology, and we need to stop just waiting for the community to develop. Just because you build it, doesn't mean they will come. We'll reach the 2.0 threshhold when enough experiences are designed in virtual worlds that accentuate what virtual worlds can do better than any other technology (real-time multi-user experiences) and we can show how communities develop around these experiences. This is actually what I like about Multiverse--it gives people something to do. A unique blend of a virtual world and a gaming platform, a lot of the features of Multiverse allow you to much more easily build engaging content that can provide a context for initial experiences in the world, which can then lead to community building. Of course, I'd like to see more examples for serious applications and less of an entertainment focus, but Multiverse has an interesting and progressive foundation for content development that allows for more engaging content design. And ultimately, content (well-designed content) will be key.
• Of course it will be open source. Look at the success of Reaction Grid. 'Nuff said.
• Virtual worlds will be an extension of the real world in a much more meaningful way. Augmented reality and mobile technology are the technology darlings of the day. I'll admit it, I don't know how (and even if I did, I'd probably be pitching it to VCs and not blogging about it :) but I do know that the future of virtual worlds, and their mainstream adoption, rests much more on the fate of augmented reality and mobile technology than anyone currently in the virtual world market would like to admit. Yes, one of the benefits of virtual worlds is that you are "immersed" but what I think we've all been missing is that they also need to be "integrated." Proton Media's Protosphere now integrates with Sharepoint. They get it. One of the tipping points will be when we can do all of the work we do now in the "real world" in a virtual world, but somehow in a virtual world we'll be able to do it better. And this ties into...
• The user experience and navigation "in-world" will be more seamless. I'll be writing more about James Cameron's movie Avatar, but one of the aspects of the movie that I noticed right away was that the characters were either completely their avatars or completely disconnected. They weren't sitting at a computer, controlling their avatars while drinking their morning coffee...they were in a full body chamber with their consciousness shifted into their avatar bodies. No, I don't think that's how we'll interact with virtual worlds...but it does represent one of the issues with virtual worlds going mainstream. How do we "connect" to the virtual world, and our avatars, psychologically? There will be a shift, a technological advance, and a change in perspective on how this happens. When we can as easily picture ourselves in the 3D world as we can walking into our real life offices, we will have reached a critical step in user adoption. I think this will be prompted by technology as much as broader awareness and acceptance of virtual worlds and ourselves as avatars.

I'm sure I'm missing the one thing that will actually change the industry (like when Microsoft integrates a virtual world technology into their Office suite). But I believe these things will happen and that will be the transition from where we are now to where we see this technology taking us. I'm really looking forward to virtual worlds 2.0.

Where are all the new ideas? I/ITSEC 2009 re-cap

Last week I attended I/ITSEC, which (if you haven't been) is an awesome display of immersive learning environments for government and military. The conference is a veritable who's who of technology and service companies who work in the training and simulation market for government and the sheer scale of the expo floor makes most other conferences I attend throughout the year seem like intimate meetings.

This was my second year attending I/ITSEC. Last year was my first, and it was a massive learning experience--a crash course in how the government approaches simulation and learning in 3D. This year, I knew a little something going in. This year, I was ready to conquer that immense expo floor and soak in all of the new and exciting technologies. This year, I was ready to be wowed instead of just trying to remember all of the acronyms.

This year, I was completely underwhelmed and frankly, kinda disappointed.

I should frame my feedback by admitting that I only had an expo pass, so I wasn't able to attend any of the sessions. That said, most of the real action at the conference happens on the expo floor (at least the action that isn't private meetings...). Maybe some of my disappointment is because the expo itself was only 3/5 of what it was last year. Surely, its because half of the booths I visited were showing the same technologies and demos that they showed last year.

There were some exceptions. I was geeked out by the DaVinci virtual surgery equipment. There were some interesting games in the Serious Games Pavillion. I had a great talk with a kindred spirit from Lockheed Martin, I saw an amazing example of virtual worlds for learning (more on this coming soon!), and our dopplegangers at Hybrid Learning continue to awe me with their mobile learning examples.

But by and large, there was nothing earth shattering. Not too much that warranted a second look. Anything really cool, you had to really look to find it. So in an industry with so much money, and so much obvious interest in simulations, games, and virtual worlds...why was I so disappointed?

• The government procurement process and the phenomena of SIs (systems integrators) squash innovation. Small companies with great ideas get chewed up and spit out in a system that is more about who you know than what you know, and relationships are rewarded over innovation. More than anything else, the process dictates the climate/environment for innovation and the environment is a tough one for small, innovative companies to navigate.
  
• In many ways, its still a good ol' boys club. There were booth babes that looked like (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt) strippers and/or prostitutes. One party included "snow bunnies." If I want to go to a strip club, I'll go. I'm not of the belief that great learning design happens while I watch girls dancing on poles, though, and I'm pretty sure that's not the best way to learn about the most effect and innovative learning solutions for our government and military workers.
• Everybody is still so focused on the technology, they don't focus too much on the design. DESIGN IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TECHNOLOGY. Sigh. The ongoing beating of that drum continues...
  
• Everybody thinks they can design effective training. Everyone says they have instructional designers, like checking the box is all that matters. And so I will say again, instructional design is not simulation design is not game design is not virtual world learning design.
• As big a market as it is, government and military would do well to look beyond government and military.
  

I will say, in my second year at the "big show," that I finally got all of the acronyms down. But getting past all of the industry lingo and fanfare, what I saw this year was a lot of money being spent on concepts, but not necessarily effective solutions. I saw a lot of intention resulting in poor execution but masked by glitzy technology.

I'd like to see more research. I'd like to see more data. I'd like to see more innovation in design. I'd like to see new players in the game. And I'd like to see that next year...

IQPC's Corporate Learning Exchange recap

Back from vacation, I had some time to reflect on my experience at IQPC's Corporate Learning Exchange. If you have never been to an event like this, and my guess is most people haven't, it is structured a bit like a timeshare sales pitch crossed with speed-dating. Attendees were by and large executive learning professionals, and most of the day was spent in presentations by their peers. But in between, there were 25 minute one-on-one meetings with learning vendors.

I was a learning vendor.

I won't bore you with logistics, but I had 14 meetings in 3 days. The first couple, I had no idea what I was doing. The interesting part of the experience was that in the process of holding those meetings, I had to get really good at explaining what we do, succinctly. The good and bad news is that we do something that very few other companies do. Its tough to talk about social media with people who haven't used a wiki, never blogged, and have never been on Twitter. Its hard to talk about virtual worlds with someone who doesn't know what an avatar is. Of course, its also an opportunity...and by the end, I was excited that I could talk about what we do much more clearly and in a way that seemed to make sense to the executives I met with.

The other interesting observation at the conference was the lack of technology. No one else was on Twitter. Hell, no one else had their laptop or mobile device on to take notes. It was pens and paper as far as the eye could see. Not only the participants, but the presenters focused an inordinate amount of attention on face to face learning. I think f2f is great...but it has so many limitations. I spent most of the time in the presentations thinking about ways to supplement or replace the f2f experiences being described with some form of distance learning technology.

I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked the format. I met some fascinating people and am already neck-deep in follow up meetings. But more than anything, this conference opened my eyes to just how far web 2.0 has to go for enterprise learning.

Are you going to 3D TLC?

A quick commercial while you can still register for a steal...I'll be speaking at 3D TLC this September and would love to see you there!

3D Training, Learning and Collaboration (3D TLC) - http://www.3dtlc.com - taking place September 23-24, 2009 in San Jose CA, is the leading event for businesses seeking to understand and maximize business strategies using virtual worlds. 3D virtual worlds have broad implications for business not the least of which is cost savings and energy conservation. Companies are using 3D environments can also strengthen their communication internally with employees and externally with customers and business partners. Come join us to learn how to take advantage of these technologies.

Early registration ends August 14th (price goes from $595 to $795). Use this Special Discount Code: SPEAKERVIP and register by August 14th to save an additional $200 off. With the earlybird price + your discount = your cost to attend is only $495! (full price is $1,295 so you save a bundle). To register go here: http://www.3dtlc.com

Virtual Worlds, Simulations, and Serious Games, Oh My!

Alright, this is a reaction post to a post by Clark Aldrich that was his analysis of the difference between a game and a simulation. If nothing else, at least it got me motivated to blog instead of just tweet (are you following me on Twitter? @koreenolbrish).

Clark uses a swimming analogy to demonstrate the differences, and somehow virtual worlds made it in the mix as well. And that's when the trouble started.

Here's a very simple definition of the difference between a simulation, a game, and a virtual world. A virtual world is a framework, an environment if you will. Its a place waiting for context and possibly content. A game is competitive or scored and the goal is to win (although for serious games, we're hoping something is learned in that quest for victory). A simulation is a storyline that typically requires decision-making to determine the outcome, but win or lose, its the journey that's important.

The funny thing is, I think Aldrich's earlier post that describes simulations, games, and virtual worlds as nested concepts, and where he introduces the acronym (ugh, ANOTHER term...) HIVE (highly interactive virtual environments) is actually MUCH closer to how these concepts intersect. And while as a learning professional I applaud the attempted use of an analogy to describe the differences between games, simulations, and virtual worlds, I think he further confused the concepts instead of simplifying them. I'm not going to attempt an analogy, but here's my simplification for anyone who asks what's the difference between a simulation, a game, and a virtual world:


Now I'd like us all to move on and start thinking about how we can design good immersive learning instead of worrying about what to call it, thank you very much ;)