Virtual spaces – ‘work-in-progress’: software, devices and design principles

Abstract:

This chapter outlines how various devises are used for the interpretation of our activities into digital data and discusses the paradigm shifts between traditional interface design and design for virtual environments. It explores various technology applications and software applicable to creating, preserving and maintaining virtual spaces, raising the issue of their sustainability. Furthermore, the chapter touches upon the platforms (present and future) we use for generating and managing online content, navigating digital spaces and personifying computer software processes. It discusses a set of design principles crucial for generating educational and cultural activities in virtual worlds and for the research into and dissemination of cultural heritage via computer-based visualization.

Key words

computer aided design

universal design principles

Web 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 technologies

London Charter

paradata

knowledge navigation

The question is not whether digital worlds will change the real world. The question is whether the real world is ready.

(Ondrejka, 2005: 22)

Morton Heilig, a cinematographer of the 1950s, predicted some time ago that the interaction between humans and technology would involve not only senses of sight and sound but also taste, touch and smell. Fourteen years later, in 1964, Marshal McLuhan elaborated on this prediction: ‘[R]apidly, we approach the final phase of the extensions of man – the technological simulation of consciousness, when the creative process of knowing will be collectively and corporately extended to the whole of human society, much as we have already extended our senses and our nerves by the various media’ (McLuhan, 1964: 3–4). Indeed, we enhance our senses by employing virtual and augmented realities and 3D visualizations of places and characters in film-making, military training and medical simulations. We interact with our ‘smart’ TVs and ‘smart’ phones on a daily basis, we talk to our ‘smart’ sat navs and we exercise with ‘smart’ virtual trainers. Interestingly, all these interactions happen via a screen, an interface or, as some researchers might argue, a barrier to seamless communication. Yehuda E. Kalay added to this observation, stating that ‘communication is a process that looks at information from the outside: even though the observer can interact with the information, s/he is not part of it. The computer screen, much like the printed page of a book, stands for a separation from the information, rather than a connection with it’ (2004: 199). To overcome this partition, ideally, there should not be any visible and easily recognizable on-screen navigation tools – such as scroll bars, windows or icons – to prevent users from being distracted by the technology and be immediately connected with the content. As discussed previously, just as software developers worked hard to make digital technology transparent and a physical interface ‘interfaceless’, so users are no longer aware of being face-to-face with a digital medium. Very often, however, participants are used to such intrusions and are not dramatically affected by them, feeling immersed in the experience. There is nothing new in this disagreement among researchers about how ‘transparent’ the interface should be. Almost fifty years ago, McLuhan defined television as a ‘cold’ medium (mainly due to the relatively small frame of a TV screen) which prevents the viewer from experiencing the same strength of emotions as, for example, they would while watching a big screen film. Therefore, he referred to a movie theatre as a ‘warm’ medium despite the fact that both of these media use similar visual display. VR takes the idea of a ‘screen’ to the next level, revolutionizing the use of television and computer technologies and facilitating cooperative communication in shared 3D spaces. One of the main goals of this technology, which distinguishes it from other media, is to promote natural interaction with and among its users, similar to that in a physical environment.

Since the early 1990s, computer scientists have recognized several paradigm shifts between traditional interface design and design for virtual environments. For example, William Bricken from the Human Interface Technology Laboratory at the University of Washington points out that the first major change happened when the advent of new technological devices enabled their users to ‘walk through’ the screen surface into inclusive virtual worlds. This innovation was a major technological breakthrough that irreversibly transformed the participant–digital-space relationship. The computer interface with its functionally organized on-screen data enabled ‘inclusion’ of the users in the computer-generated environments and empowered their direct interaction with various forms of information. The second paradigm shift took place when digital spaces became adapted to natural human behaviour within them. Despite this adaptation, however, some training of participants prior to entry into cyberspace is still desirable and often necessary (this will be discussed further in Part 3). Another important paradigm shift happened with the transformation of virtual world users into active agents capable of generating their own applications and, by doing so, co-creating the matrix of a virtual world. And, finally, the latest change to date was conditioned by the invention of acoustigraphic environments, where all movements of the participants involved in a VR experience are multimodal or, to be more precise, can be coordinated with visual representations, as well as with ambient and localized sound. The role of sound within virtual worlds is very important for the psychological assessment and the internal mapping of computer-generated spaces. It gives greater dimension to them and supports the participant’s sense of place. VR is a data environment, where interaction between the system and its users happens on different levels of communication with various levels of intensity. This study, however, is mostly concerned with analysing the visual qualities of virtual worlds and the ability of VR applications to help in realizing one of the fundamental objectives in the design process – 3D perception.

There is little doubt that virtual reality modelling is becoming more and more realistic, with the entertainment industry driving its progress. Indeed, 3D graphics have had a revolutionary impact on image production over the last decade. The type of software used for the creation of immersive virtual spaces is a hybrid between CAD (computer aided design, computer aassisted design or computer assisted drafting) and paint programs, offering a combination of vector-based geometry and pixel-based painting. This combination ensures the necessary degree of realism in the final draft, which is reflected in the accuracy of the properties assigned to the objects’ surfaces and the lighting effects upon them. Computer programs for CAD are commonly employed by engineers and architects for improving their technical skills and producing precise drafts and plans. This type of software allows the presentation of complex and easily redrawn images and also enables the users to develop their visual projects more accurately. It should be borne in mind, however, that there will always be limits to the realism of digital spaces, objects and characters. Currently, a number of computer scientists (for example Goel et al., 2012) focus their studies on ‘intelligent’ and ‘knowledge-based’ CAD systems that deploy artificial intelligence techniques and are concerned with communication and knowledge sharing to promote collaboration and creativity among designers and engineers. Computational systems developed under the influence of new media technologies certainly advanced the management of the design and construction process; however, they have not fully succeeded in making the most of the innovative aspects of information technology. Despite the fact that they solved controlled data management, greatly improving the efficiency of the process, computational technologies also promoted the ‘"symmetry of ignorance" – the inability of one professional to understand [and communicate] the needs and responsibilities of other professionals’ (Kalay, 2006: 361). This happened mainly because such qualitative implications of information technology as its ability to accommodate the individuality and fluent nature of the creative design process were overlooked by the developers. There are platforms, however, that to a certain degree succeeded in promoting communication in digital spaces. In the field of higher education, for instance, there are a number of studies (a recent example being Timmis, 2011) that investigate instant messaging as a means (or tool) of peer-to-peer communication in the process of learning as a social activity. Using this technology implies ‘continual multitasking across formal and informal settings and boundaries’ (Timmis, 2011: 4), which could either distract learners from the study process or, on the contrary, become a...