In Second Life, users create an avatar and move about the space in the game as if they were moving about the world... only you can fly. Companies like IBM are using Second Life as a collaboration tool. Even though Second Life was created as a game for entertainment purposes, it can still be used as a successful collaboration tool. One advantage that Second Life has over other programs and tools that groups use is that people are able to literally look around. Users get to choose what they see, and in Second Life, what users see is less constrained than other tools. Where other tools would require more communication, whether it be text, voice, or video, in Second Life, people can just look around. Another advantage about the visual aspect is that since each person is represented by an avatar, they feel closer to the other people in the space because they can see everyone else's avatar. Compare this to not having any visual representation, say for example, in email. All you see is the sender's name. This makes communication less personal. What's good about this high level of inter-personal interaction is that people collaborate more efficiently. Another aspect of Second Life that makes collaboration more efficient is its synchrony. All users' interactions are in real time, and when someone performs an action, the other users see it as it happens. This helps because there is less time spent between actions. Also, if there are any ambiguities, they can be cleared up instantly. Compare this to email again, and we can see that it could be days before someone responds. This lag in communication is inefficient.
There are also some aspects of Second Life that make collaboration less efficient. The biggest issue that was brought up in lecture with Professor McLeod was that there is no voice chat in Second Life. In World of Warcraft, players can vocally communicate so they can keep their hands in the ASWD + mouse position while maintaining communication with the other players. However, in Second Life, only the only form of chat is text-chat. Players must put their hands in a new position and interupt game play to talk to other players. Still, I believe that the benefits that Second Life offers for collaboration outweight the lack of voice communication.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I thought your take on avatars being able to actually look around was a good point. In other CMC mediums, like video conferencing, you can only look at what the other person focuses the camera on. But in Second Life, you actually control the camera which is kind of cool.
ReplyDeleteI also liked that you used the actual avatar as an advantage of collaboration. I agree that using avatars creates more of an intimate atmosphere. I think that the personality part that you brought out also relates to impression creation and management. A person can highlight certain characteristics of their personality by dressing their avatar a certain way or acting in a certain manner.
It is definitely interesting that you talk about a users point of view in Second Life. I never actually thought about the advantages that control over one's scope can have.
ReplyDeleteWith all that being said do you think that the ability for voice communication makes War Craft a better outlet for collaboration than Second Life? If so do you think that has a bigger bearing on collaboration than you think?
J. Fox,
ReplyDeleteExcellent point. I feel that WoW is a better collaboration tool for what it was programmed to do (whatever that may be... I don't play WoW. I'm assuming it's like fighting people). However, if people were collaborating to do something more business/project related, I would certainly say that Second Life is a better option than WoW. Second Life would be a significantly better option if it had the same voice capabilities that WoW has. I guess my point is that Second Life would be better with voice.