I currently work for two very different organizations, Teaching and Learning with Technology (TLT) and the Center for Immersive Experiences (CIE). At TLT, we play the match game. Our technology expertise is broad. Our goal is to find technology solutions that meet (learning) objectives and resolve (teaching) challenges. We evaluate both content, and technologies, with equal scrutiny before paring the two. At CIE, we also play the match game but our focus is on Extended Reality (XR) technologies. XR includes Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR) and Mixed Reality (MR). VR is the most mature of the three so the majority of our focus so far has been there. Our goal is to create VR experiences that meet (learning and research) objectives and resolve (teaching) challenges. We exam content carefully and attempt to pair thoughtful, and meaningful, VR experiences with it. The difference between matching content to a “best fit” technology and matching a selected technology to content is a significant one. It often means the content itself has to be more mailable since the technology choice is rigid. To know how to shape content to fit a technology mold we must first understand what the technology is and what its affordances are.
What is VR?
To fully understand what VR is, and what we can do with it, we need to look at it from multiple angles. Defining VR from a theoretical, pragmatic, and practical point of view, we will paint a clear picture of what VR is and what it is not. These definitions will also put educators, researchers and game designers on a common ground of understanding so they can collaborate more effectively.
THEORETICAL
VR is a technology that can be used to replicate real life experiences.
In theory, this is what makes VR so attractive for education. Delivering digital experiences that give users a chance to practice real life scenarios, with out real consequence, sounds like a perfect way of educating and evaluating knowledge. In theory, the statement of “if you know how to do it in VR, you know how to do it in real life,” seems true. Simulation training has been around for a long time in various forms, both digital and physical. In theory, VR is the ideal simulation technology because it combines both the digital (output) and the physical (input).
Where this theoretical definition breaks down is in the words “replicate real life.” Reality is an infinitely complex system with a countless number of variables. Even the most advanced artificial intelligence algorithms aren’t enough to replicate reality in all it’s complexity. Even if we could design systems that replicated reality it would most likely hinder the application’s ability to achieve learning objectives because too many outside variables would come into play. In addition to software challenges, current state VR hardware is incapable of replicating the precision of human interactivity with reality. Our sense of sight, touch, sound and smell are only in their infant stages of being replicated by VR hardware.
The theoretical definition of VR might be possible in the future however, to understand why current state VR doesn’t quite live up to its theoretical promise, we need to examine a pragmatic definition.
PRAGMATIC
VR is a peripheral that enhances interaction with digital experiences, allowing them to happen in a more natural way.
Let’s look at the first half of this definition which states, VR is a peripheral. To understand what that means let’s look at a recent history of peripherals that allow us to interact with digital experiences.
-
- Video Game Controllers
- Joysticks, D-Pads and buttons
- 2D and 2.5D Worlds
- Platforming and side scrolling
- Fighting games
- Dual stick controllers
- 3D Worlds
- Independent control of character and camera
- Wiimotes
- 2D and 3D Worlds
- Pointable / Light gun activities
- Motion tracking using accelerometer
- Joysticks, D-Pads and buttons
- Mobile Phones
- Touchscreen
- 2D and 3D Worlds
- Games of convivence (Match 3 Mania!)
- Touchscreen
- Video Game Controllers
The list above contains what I would call “mainstream” peripherals. But our definition states that VR enhances interaction with digital experiences. There have been many of these types of enhancing peripherals in recent history as well.
-
- Flight Sticks
- Steering Wheels
- Rock Band Instruments
The above peripherals enhance the interaction with the digital experiences they are designed for. That does not mean they are the only way of participating in the experience. Many, if not all, of the digital experiences these peripherals are designed for can also be interacted with using mainstream peripherals. So why would anyone chose to use a peripheral that enhances the digital experience? The answer to that is covered in the second half of our pragmatic definition, because it allows them to interact with the digital content in a more natural way.
Enhanced peripheral usage comes at a cost. They are often less convenient, and less adaptable, than mainstream peripherals. For this reason, enhanced peripherals are usually only adopted by users who have a particular passion for the digital experience the peripheral enhances.
Being a peripheral means that VR is of auxiliary, or supplemental, importance to the experience itself. Can the same digital experience be had using some other peripheral? That depends on what we mean by “the same” experience. We already know that many digital experiences can be interacted with using a variety of peripherals. However, is it possible that those who chose enhanced peripherals have a “better” experience than those who do not? Or, is it possible the “better” experience has more to do with the design of the experience itself and less to do with the type of peripheral being used? Isn’t it possible that the “best” experiences could be designed in such a way that they require an enhanced peripheral? To answer that question we must look at a practical definition of what VR is.
PRACTICAL
VR is a technology that can deliver experiences that can be had no other way.
Despite what the theoretical definition of VR says, we can not replicate reality, not from a software standpoint and definitely not with current gen VR hardware. Instead of focusing on how “real” we can make an experience, we should focus on leveraging the unique affordances of VR. We should use creative design to make sure those affordances are featured in the experience. The design should prove without doubt that this experience would not be possible with out an enhanced peripheral, like VR.
For now, I see five primary unique affordances of VR that could be areas of focus in practical VR development:
- Exploration with Focus on Spatial Recognition
- Physical and Spatial Interactions
- Appreciation of Relative Scale
- Personally Relevant “Discovery Narratives”
- Social Physical and Social Spatial Interactions
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.