To cross the chasm, we must close the language gap
by Erica Driver and Sam Driver.
One of the themes of the 3DTLC conference last week was language. This was a recurring topic from the April, 2009 3DTLC conference, but the focus has shifted. Half a year ago the discussion was about whether we should use the term “virtual worlds” or something else. Last week, it became clear from the presentations and conversations that the next wave of adopters — the pragmatists — speak a different language from the early adopters. This language gap is a barrier to adoption of immersive technologies in the workplace; it’s a facet of facing “the chasm,” to use the terminology of Geoffrey Moore (see the book, Crossing the Chasm). (For more insights on how to overcome barriers to adoption see the Sept. 23, 2009 ThinkBalm report, Crossing the Chasm, One Implementation at a Time.)
Immersive Internet technology marketers, advocates, and implementers who are successful at closing this language gap will be competitively positioned to cross the chasm. The way to accomplish this is to speak the vernacular of target business sponsors, stakeholders, and users. As an example, Kevyn Renner, senior technology consultant at Chevron, said it well in his presentation at 3DTLC. When talking with people about the refinery asset virtual environment (“RAVE”) his team is piloting, he describes it using the terminology of the oil refinery — not Web 2.0 or 3D Internet language.
While Kevyn’s example is industry-specific, we can also change the way we talk about immersive technologies in a generalized way. The words we use should convey what people at work can do with the technology, more than describe the technology itself. For example, when talking with business decision makers we use the term email, not SMTP traffic crossing the Internet. We talk about instant messaging, not real-time extensible communication protocols. Likewise, to successfully communicate about immersive technologies to pragmatists we should be talking about collaboration spaces, operations centers, and building blocks rather than virtual worlds and prims.
Below, we offer suggestions to serve as a starting point for discussion. Included are generic terms intended to appeal to business decision makers. We recommend leaving behind terminology that commonly draws negative associations and words that arose out of science fiction. Of course, if your audience is in IT, it’s okay to talk tech — but remember that even IT pros will not likely be familiar with virtual worlds-specific terms. If your audience is a hospital administrator, HR manager, or sales manager, speak the language of their business and job function. In the end, the specific language you choose should depend on your target audience.
Immersive Internet terminology map
| Terms to avoid | Suggested alternatives |
|
|
| Virtual (when used in opposition to “real”) |
|
|
Clerk, doctor, officer, customer, or whatever role the non-player character /AI / bot in the environment represents. |
| Prim |
|
| Texture (when used to describe an uploaded image) |
|
| In-world |
|
|
|
|
|
| Terraform |
|
| Rez |
|
| Teleport (“TP”) |
|
| Machinima | Video |
[1] For more information about the concept of a bridge (based on the bridge on a ship) see the August 14, 2009 ThinkBalm Innovation Community video “The Bridge.”
© 2009 ThinkBalm. All rights reserved.
Subscribe via RSS
I think this hits the nail perfectly on the head. At the end of the day, people will only adopt what they can see is of use and fits into their environment. It’s not about dumbing down what virtual worlds can do, but making sure that people can absorb its potential in bite-size chunks. Well done for being so pragmatic.
Exactly, Barbara — it’s not about “dumbing things down” at all. It’s about nothing more than communicating in such a way that our target audience can understand us.
A technology marketer I’ve been emailing with about this subject made the point that some terms, like “simulation,” are deeply entrenched in sectors like government. His comment reinforces our message that the language should be selected carefully based on the target audience. If the audience you’re trying to reach expects to hear the word simulation and knows what it means, then by all means that’s the right term to use.
*Tapes Erica and Sam’s table of “Suggested Alternative Terms” to the edge of her monitor.*
Thanks so much, it’s a great remind that even as we hope to draw users into this environment, we must find the words/concepts that they can relate to and build from there.
Janalee/ jenn
Sam:
Excellent “food for thought”. You reminded me of a sentence I used when presenting performance-enhancing workshops to HR business partners. I would say: “In order for your business case to have impact, you must speak the language of the line so that you business partners in other divisions know you understand their issues and pain points”.
I have also taped a copy of your list to my computer. We needed your reminder about the critical importance of using appropriate language for making connections with our target audience/s.
Hard to change the habits of the ‘in’ people. There is no doubt that this is a frustrating time of VW advocates. It seems so obvious to us, so why can’t others get it? Having been through many technology waves over the past, I have matured in my patience. Often the technology terms, like ‘rez’ that you propose to ban, become the popular terms. Who would have thought that people would make verbs out of ‘google’ and ‘twitter’?
I have a feeling that your suggestions above are well-meaning and constructive, but too superficial. It is not the terms that need changing. It is the concept of ‘immersive’ that needs an effective explanation. Like riding a bicycle, you can read, watch and study it, but you do not actually get it until you do it. Until most professionals get the concept of immersive through some form of doing it, we will not be able to cross any chasms.
Point well taken, Richard. There is a huge element of “You’ve got to try it to like it,” with this emerging technology. The question is: how do you get pragmatic business people to even try the new technology if its very nature is alien to them and they don’t understand the words we use to describe it? Granted, modifying our language to the vernacular of our target audience is just one small (okay, tiny) step toward crossing the chasm. There are lots of technological barriers to adoption, as well as people-related barriers (especially time and perception), and financial barriers. We describe these in detail, and offer suggestions of springboards to overcome the barriers, in the ThinkBalm report “Crossing the Chasm, One Implementation at a Time.” Link here: http://www.thinkbalm.com/2009/09/23/new-thinkbalm-analyst-report-crossing-the-chasm-one-implementation-at-a-time/.
Hello,
I’ve been defining terms as I think of them, and putting my thoughts on Twitter. which reminds me: at 3DTLC i got made fun of for writing notes with a pen in my notebook. My response: well its actually “Virtual Twitter”. I had Tweeted about this concept a while back. the gist is that many things had their first manifestion in a digital-only environment, eg. Twitter. from my perspective that makes “Digital Twitter” real. However, if I walk around with a stack of post-it notes and scribble 140 characters on each sticking them to things along the way, am I not “Virtually Tweeting”. in this use-case I would argue that i am using a second, non-original form of Twitter. if I am not happy with the appearance of my Virtual Tweets, I could customize my Tweet-Avatar by getting some notepads made that said “Twitter” on them. I agree that its not exactly the same as Digital Twitter, but few Virtual manifestations are identical to the orginals.
Further, If I put a computer in my virtual office, and my Avatar uses that computer to Tweet:
1. Who authored the Tweet?
2. Was the system that generated the Tweet Real or Virtual?
My point with all of this(I promise its not nonsense) is that we must choose our definitions very carefully, and such that we understand clearly what we mean when something is in digital form vs physical form.
beyond that, I am of the opinion at the moment that the only things in VR that we need to make up names for, are things that truly have no resemblence to anything that exists in another medium. And since I am pretty much with that statement, I will venture to say that it is not required that a single common lexicon is needed to describe things in VR that historically have different names in their orginal manifestations.
Not considering foreign languages for now, its completely normal for different industries to refer to the same things by different names. and if we through the various branches of the military/gov into the mix, a common lexicon would be about as likely as a single universally adopted open-source VR platform(ooops, did I say that last part out loud?).
How about a Virtual Thesaurus?
Part of this is about the jargon used between people who use these technologies everyday in an informal environment. I notice that most of the phrases on the left are shorter and to the point, in that they are more definitive. It appears there are two forms of speech forming here with informal versus formal. Although people may try to speak formally (the right), they may often fall back on informal speech (on the left) when speaking with friends within collaboration spaces.
Erica,
Have already read the “Cross ther Chasm” article and have been dealing with all, despite the successes you’ve seen. Have taken word “Virtual” out of discussion completely and try to refer to 3D Immersive Internet or just Immersive Internet and them tailor to audience from there.
Erica/Sam, I’m going to send this post to the enterprise team within the Lab. It’s so true. When I first arrived at the Lab a year ago, I understood every third word that my colleagues said. it took me a good month to become conversant in the native “virtual world” (ICK–used purposely here) tribal, jargon-y, inaccessible language. As the person who leads enterprise marketing for Second Life Work, I’ll commit to watch the words that I use and make sure that traditional business people can understand me. It’s a huge hurdle to widespread immersive work adoption that is fully within our control.
Here’s a challenge that I would like to pose to you and the group–and the key to ubiquity. We use the word email, Webex, etc., for other collaborative technologies. Is ‘inworld” the right term for working in an immersive space? Is that what we are going to ask people to understand and use? I’m not convinced yet. Would love to hear from others….
BTW–we have a Second Life glossary that we use for the localization team/volunteers.It’s the scariest thing that I’ve ever seen, particularly given this context. If you have a gmail account, check it out. The link is available here, just scroll down: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Community_Translation_-_Tools_we_Use.