Elaine Raybourn's CVE 2000 Workshop Notes

Voltage in the Milky Night: The Future of CVEs Workshop Notes
San Francisco, CA, September 10, 2000

Workshop Organizers
Alan Munro, Napier University
Andrew McGrath, Huchinson 3G
Elaine Raybourn, Sandia National Labs

Notes taken by Elaine Raybourn

Afternoon Speakers

Xiolong Xhang

MuSE : Multiscale 3D Virtual Environment-- Based on the 2D zoomable interface such as Pad++. Why Multiscale?
1. Large information structure, limited 'scale bandwidth' of human interaction, need ways to deploy that scarce, scale-resource across the needed larger range of scale (change the scale of interaction and perception).
2. Collaborative Working: Combining larger tasks into subtasks. Multiple people work in the same virtual space but may be a different scales. Multiscale environments must deal with object manipulation, locomotion, and awareness.
3. Cross-scale object manipulation may mean that context is lost as objects are shared.
4. The speed with which users manipulate objects is an issue. 5. In a virtual environment, speed may be meaningless as a mouse may be able to "move" as quickly as an elephant. Should multiscale be incorporated in teleportation?
6. Users working at different scales may not be able to 'see each other' or work together.
7. Conclusions: an mCVE may allow users to gain experience working in multiscale environments, mCVE could help improve object manipulation and navigation in CVEs, users learn to problem solve at multiple scales.

Questions and Reactions:

  • What is the role of perceived avatar distance and size?
  • FAA: how are the data and hierarchy modeled? How deep is the information structure?
  • User feedback? Data available on 2D environments, but as of yet, no data on 3D.
  • Johnson and Leigh--paper on levels of hierarchy. Unix is a highly formalized environment. Should we think of less formalized environments when designing these environments?

    Claire Knight, Malcolm Munro

    Flexibility or Volatility? (Mutability) Questions?
    1. Is flexibility (or some form of 'good' mutability) going to always lead to volatility?
    2. Will mutability lead to enhanced automatability of CVEs? Will mutability free the constraints of designers and users?
    3. Information visualization VEs are often defined by the data, the information itself may mutate as the VE mutates.
    4. Distributed components, impact of remote users?
    5. Data are not as restrictive as one might think. Data definition does not need to be minimized for information visualization VEs.
    6. Adding collaboration to visualizations creates a host of issues that need to be dealt with. Can we make sense of all the changes?
    7. Aspirations: To encompass change in a logical manner, customization, allow for generative change.

    Questions and Reactions?

  • See Snowden--paper which argues for noncollaborative spaces.
  • These VEs are defined by data, and as the environments change, certain data are privileged--which may influence the knowledge management. One of the most important elements of change is the history of change.

    Munro and Churchill

    Introduction of Open Brainstorming Session
    1. (Elizabeth)--Waterfall Glen--Social Scalability and the relationship to boundaries. MOOs and MUDs are lightweight, the learning curve is not as great as setting up a graphical virtual environment. The MUD is mutable in that users can build independently of others. Mark Ackerman took a look at the metaphors underlying the 'digital library.' Alan and Elizabeth are examining the underlying metaphors of the term 'collaborative virtual environment.'
    2. Is an audio environment a CVE? Audio can offer presence and co-presence.
    3. Some users (mostly males between 18-24) log on to CVEs for approximately 5 minutes and then leave. What is it that they are not getting? Why don't they stay?
    4. What defines an environment? How are environments lived, and how do they change?
    5. How do we support people moving from virtual environment to virtual environment?
    6. (Alan)--Football hooligans and Glasgow gangs--there is a close connection to physical spaces, and patrolling borders. When spaces are challenged, context becomes a defining parameter of the environment. What is important is the individual's relationship to information that creates knowledge.
    7. Different modes of inhabitants may exist in the same space.

    Len Wojak

    Aviation System
    1. Traffic Flow Management--Strategic Level, Air Traffic Control--Tactical level
    2. Different Users with Different Tasks
    3. Different Operations--differing perspectives and perceptions toward daily operations--including cultural (informal vs. formal) norms of cooperation or competition.
    4. Given the problem, what can we do to improve this situation beyond improving efficiency?

    Elaine Raybourn

    Aviation System Problem: Contexts and Concepts to Consider for Design
    1. Different opportunities for Knowledge Management: decisions at strategic, tactical, and operational level
    2. Different users-- different collaborative tasks
    3. Different perspectives and perceptions toward daily
    operations--including cultural (informal vs. formal) norms of cooperation or competition
    4. Different data are salient in each sub-system context
    5. Collaborative decision-making--does is cross scale?
    6. Who are the CVEs for?
    7. Can a CVE encourage organizational change? If so, how?
    8. Given the constraints of the problem, can CVEs help? What can we do beyond improving efficiency?

    Breakout session (entire group): The FAA problem

    1. This problem is interesting because it is real, not just some beard scratching researchers. The problem is also interesting due to it's legal, political, economic, and cultural framework that influences the way the system is designed. Perhaps the role of a virtual environment is to allow the different groups (in this case, the airlines) to come to some agreement of sorts.
    2. KM--it might be a language representation issue. In a CVE which brings together many several kinds of decision-makers, a mediator may be necessary--and it should probably not be one of the stakeholders. Digital workspaces may be combined with collaborative environments.
    3. The solution may not be technical. Important questions may need to be carefully asked about the role of the CVE and the desired collaborative outcome.
    4. Include the use of CVEs early in the design phase or decision-making stage. CVEs are not just for our users, but also for us--the developers and designers. A CVE could be used to examine information flow.
    5. Cultural and social change is an important factor to consider in software development.
    6. Another issue in CVE development is the different levels of familiarity with technologies.
    7. Can organizational change be encouraged by collaborative virtual environments?
    8. Future of CVEs? VEs that encourage organizational change? User involvement? There are a host of users that will help define the future of CVEs.
    9. Can "poorly" designed CVEs actually enhance communication and collaboration? Is communication among users our end goal?
    10. What kind of metaphor will be used to describe or characterize a CVE?
    11. The idea of a 'single' entity that is a CVE is breaking down. Now our CVEs are socially derived hybrid environments, involving a variety of communication media.

    What did we get out of this workshop?

    1. Collages--lightweight tools can ease understanding complex problems. Will virtual objects ever "move" real objects?
    2. Mixed realities--in the future will we not be able to tell what is real and what is not?
    3. There are many different types of virtual environments that can expand our thinking.
    4. Augmented reality--when concentrating
    5. Came with a lot of questions and I'm leaving with a lot of them.
    6. Mixed reality--online internet-based systems--kids use them all the time and they are our future users. They switch in and out of virtuality and reality. We should be as spontaneous.
    7. Air Transportation System discussion was appreciated! We should distinguish between natural and artificial.
    8. The future of CVEs could lead us to develop technologies that remind us what it means to be fully human. We could create more technologies that draw from our cultural experiences and those facets that make us all uniquely human.
    9. Coming from a non-CVE background, what is important is discovering what the nature of collaboration is.
    10. From a design perspective, what was interesting was the fay different CVEs
    11. Enjoyed the social and cultural discussion around the development of CVEs.
    12. It was interesting thast the technologies were mixed, a paradigm shift may be necessary. We may not just build up reality, but also a hybrid reality.
    13. There are concrete uses for CVEs. The examples used in the workshop were good to think about the complexity of CVE design and our user environments.
    14. There were a lot of good ideas put out that I may be able to incorporate in my research.
    15. CVE Infrastructure will become an extension of our physical environment, which may make us more aware of who we are.

    Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Stereolab for inspiring the title of our workshop.

    Return to Elaine Raybourn's Homepage