It was very hard for me to “get into” Second Life; in fact, I still don’t really see the benefit of using Second Life, especially in serious collaborative tasks, but that could be because I’ve passed the “newbie disease” of a new technology and I didn’t have enough patient for it. However, Professor McLeod claimed in her lecture that there is “something” about Second Life that attracts people. No one is quite sure what it is, but Second Life has managed to capture people’s attention.
So how well would Second Life work in a collaborative task? I believe it depends on a couple of factors. First is the infamous lag time. I experienced this when I went on Second Life during Professor McLeod’s lecture. Lag is the disconnection between “actual-world time and virtual world time” (Boellstroff, pg 102). A lengthy disconnection between two groups of people, or partners on Second Life could be lethal, especially in an important board meeting (like the ones IBM liked to hold via Second Life). Another problem is being a newbie on Second Life. This virtual world requires some time and effort to become comfortable with it. It is hard to do anything if you hardly know the controls of Second Life. I’ll admit I felt like I had little command of the various commands and options; making a complete sofa might have taken me longer than others.
Second Life seems like it would be a good program for guilds or groups from other places to meet and discuss plans or just talk to each other. Because you can see multiple people at the same time and see the “group chat,” it would be perfect for gaming groups. It would also be good for long term projects because the lag-time issue may not be as big of a problem. It would not be good for two friends to talk on if one friend is from an area where isn’t a fast internet connection (ie. developing countries). As Professor McLoad mentions, everything in Second Life occurs in real-time, which is important for group meetings. The biggest drawback I find with Second Life is that it is essentially still a game (like the SIMs). I have a hard time taking it seriously (or caring about it). Other people may feel the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Just to add to Professor McLeod's contention that "something" attracts people to Second Life...
ReplyDeleteToday I read an article on CNN about young stay-at-home mothers who get addicted to the internet. Second Life was a recurring theme, and I wonder if Second Life is attractive to people who have time to devote to it and learning how to use it (like a mother who is sitting around the house while her baby is napping, for example). I agree that Second Life would be great for groups like guilds, but I do think that it is also conducive to forming online one-on-one friendships. After all, I've heard stories of people who have gotten divorces over Second Life affairs.
Second Life is definitely difficult to get accustomed to. It seems like a tool that I could not really come addicted to. However, it definitely makes sense for big companies such as IBM to use it to collaborate with all of its global employees at once. Using Second Life takes more thought than using a typical collaborative technology like the ones we use on a day to day basis. There is a lot more to remember but I guess you get used to it. Good post!
ReplyDeleteI agree that the environment is difficult to get aquainted with for a collobsrative task. It is also unprofessional for a project. It can be hard to digest the fact that your group mate is a plant or some weird object. It would be more affective if your avatar could still be a human being.
ReplyDelete