Comments on: Immersive tech for meetings/conferences must be scalable and easy to use

By: Andrew Chapman

Andrew Chapman — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:19:06 +0000

As a developer myself, and a user of many years, I can see both points.
The problem is, whilst having 1,000′s of users in the same virtual environment at the same time, all participating in the same realtime event, it is not really feasible with current hardware limitations. This is perhaps why ‘lite’ immersive platforms have taken off. I believe these are a technology stop gap, that will loose ground to fully immersive 3D environments, over time.

The systems I have been working on to date, begin to raise the stakes. We have created a stable browser based environment for almost 1,000 realtime users in the one instance of an environment and believe this can be taken to around 1,500 before latency begins to degrade the quality of the experience.

We are also involved with a major consortium, industrialising both client and server systems, that will allow the realtime users in a single environment to reach multi thousands on todays hardware. It will tick boxes such as, browser based, no additional plug-ins required, security built into the core, interoperability for content/avatars and user identity, content using standard mainstream formats, modular design to allow for user adaptation, rich API set. I cannot offer a time line for the release of the solution, but I can report that this is an international consortium backed by some serious industrial players.

We believe this will lower the barriers for adopters and give the user experience demanded without the high tech entry points. It will also meet the requirements for network administrators and deployment strategies. The tools will finally begin to fit the needs of the users, as opposed to training the users to accept technology limitations.

By: Dennis Shiao

Dennis Shiao — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:54:03 +0000

Erica & Brian: I enjoyed reading Erica’s original post, as well as your follow-on discussion.

To address Brian’s points, I don’t think virtual events (e.g. light immersive platforms) ever claimed to achieve “virtual reality”, at least in terms of the ‘pure’ definition of VR – Brian’s characterization of virtual events as applications layered on top of dimensional backgrounds is quite accurate (today).

I do agree with Erica in terms of the market speaking loud and clear – virtual events are gaining adoption due to their ease of use and scalability. Rather than placing a cut-out of a Ferrari on top of a Toyota, we’re focused on a well-assembled engine and a car that’s easy to drive.

Over time, that Toyota may start to achieve the look, style and “immersiveness” of a Ferrari, but we must not sacrifice ease-of-use and scalability in getting there.

Dennis Shiao
InXpo Product Marketing | Blogger at “It’s All Virtual”

By: Erica Driver

Erica Driver — Tue, 04 May 2010 12:34:00 +0000

Brian: I think the bottom-line issue is that for organizations that have never used immersive software before, the barriers to adoption of rich immersive software (3D) are high. Barriers to adoption of light immersive software (pseudo-3D) are lower. For presentation-style small meetings, large meetings, and conferences, the market is speaking loud and clear: ease of use and scalability are higher priorities than deep immersion. For learning simulations, 3D data visualization, remote facility operations, and other more complex use cases, the requirement for 3D remains high.

By: Brian Bauer

Brian Bauer — Tue, 04 May 2010 12:19:39 +0000

Erica,

” In contrast, people who have no experience with 3D environments find the light immersive software to be incredibly immersive; they are comparing it to a conference call or web conference.”

this is irony, isn’t it? is the desired outcome to be compared to a conference call or webex? if so, what’s the point?

as for scalability and usability – real innovation understands the availabilty of tools, the destination environment, the target demographic(and the needs for usability), then produces something that provides a meaningful improvement to the status-quo. Or, we can blame technology for its shortcomings and all the things that “we would love to today, but can’t”

I can take a cardboard cutout of a Ferrari and tape it to the side of a Toyota. I can then talk about the fantastic innovation I have created: its accessible, user friendly, scalable, inexpensive and comparable to a Toyota…..

By: Erica Driver

Erica Driver — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:23:02 +0000

Brian: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I know what you mean about “going back” once you’ve experienced a rich immersive environment. I’ve found that people who have experience using rich immersive environments (3D environments like virtual worlds or immersive learning environments) are acutely aware of the limits to immersion offered by the light immersive software (e.g., ON24, InXpo, Unisfair). In contrast, people who have no experience with 3D environments find the light immersive software to be incredibly immersive; they are comparing it to a conference call or web conference.

The trade-offs for the higher level of immersion possible with 3D environments are ease of use and scalability. For some use cases (e.g., some business activity rehearsal and training scenarios), 3D is an absolutely necessary element. For others (e.g., large meetings and conferences) it is less important than ease of use and scalability.

Neither rich immersive environments nor light immersive environments are inherently good or bad. The trick is to pick the right tool for the job.

By: Brian Bauer

Brian Bauer — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:11:48 +0000

Hi Erica,
I’m not entirely convinced of your conclusions, at least without some very careful qualifications of who, what, where, etc. “light immersive” is being very polite. I’ve had quasi-immersive experiences while looking at high quality wedding photos taken with a medium format camera. the depth of the photos has an ability to draw you in. I’ve not spent too much time with products such as On24 an Inxpo, but i think of their visual experience as akin to taking good pictures of a diarama, then adding chat features. You know that confusion you get when you;ve been using your ipad or iphone, then pick up a Kindle or a Nook? they all have books on the screen so I find myself poking at the kindle screen, but nothing happens! I had the same experience in On24/InXpo. I saw people(some even following walking scripts). I found myself rapidly pressing my arrow keys to run over to them to chat. alas, it was like poking my blackberry. I was stuck in front of my computer at my desk. I got excited when I saw chat, and then the “avatar” button. hmmm, looks like AOL in ’92, with a headshot from Facebook. I think that we are being too generous to call these platforms “light virtual reality”. I see them more as desktop applications layerd on dimensional backgrounds. Or, imagine a translucent GUI placed on the side of a store window, where the manequins are animatronic. I’f call this augmented reality, but that generally implies application interface being overlayed onto something real. In my mind, this category is really about a new “presentation layer” on top of webex/live meeting type features. I get the fact that these platforms can have masses of “concurrent users”, but so can a Verizon conference bridge line, so can a gaggle of other diarama based communication tools. we have known for quite some time that “virtual” is an abused term, that carries little value these days. “ant farm” type visuals are one end of the spectrum, 3D POV MMOG Immersive environments are certainly at the other. adding another dimension of course is the sophistication of what we can do in a “real” immersive environment built on industrial tools, not on top of pictures and scripted animation. I may be coming accross as a bit harsh, but some of us really have our hands full trying to erase the perceptions and encounters that customers have historically had with either very bad, or altogether Faux VR.
Thanks,

Brian