[ieee 2012 ieee virtual reality (vr) - costa mesa, ca, usa (2012.03.4-2012.03.8)] 2012 ieee virtual...

2
Mixing Real and Virtual Conferencing: Lessons Learned Ajay Surendernath Geetika Sharma Ralph Schroeder Basant Kumar Pandey Tata Consultancy Tata Consultancy University of Oxford Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Services Ltd. Services Ltd. ABSTRACT This paper describes a conference which linked several remote sites via a virtual environment so that the virtual audience could follow the presentations and interact with real presenters. The aim was to assess the feasibility of linking distributed virtual audiences to an ongoing conference event. Various types of data about the conference were gathered, such as participant observations, interviews and a survey of the audience, and analyzed. The main finding is that a number of ‘low tech’ improvements could be made that could greatly enhance this type of virtual conferencing. A related finding is that the visual fidelity of the environment and of the avatars plays a lesser role than other factors such as audio quality. Given the paucity of research on how virtual conferencing can substitute for travel, plus the urgency of this topic for environmental reasons, a number of suggestions are made for the implementation of remote virtual conference participation. Index Terms: Collaborative virtual environments, real and virtual conferences, virtual environments. 1 INTRODUCTION In this paper, we describe our experience of a technical conference which involved the participation of both a real as well as virtual audience from a dozen different locations. We present various types of data, including participant observation, informal interviews, and a survey of the remote virtual audience participants. 2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND MOTIVATION A conference shares some of the features of collaborative virtual environments (CVEs), like those used in education. There are a number of studies of CVEs [1], though these have not specifically focused on remote conference participation. Conferences also share some features of distributed work meetings, which have been far less studied [4]. Finally, there are similarities with virtual exhibitions [3]. Conferences using CVEs are nevertheless different from these three uses of CVEs in that they involve speakers and audiences and bring people together for the exchange of ideas. Yet virtual conferences have rarely been investigated or evaluated [2]. The virtual/real conference that we describe here is novel in at least five ways: one is the mix of the virtual and real audience. The second is that the conference was carried out in a CVE which was restricted to researchers from one organization, rather than in an open-to-all environment like Second Life. Third, the conference was sustained over the course of two and a half days. Fourth, the conference brought together 12 locations where participants were co-located but from where they could take part in a single virtual lecture theatre with avatars. Fifth, the virtual world was developed specifically for work inside the company. 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM AND EVENT The virtual environment (VE) that was used was VirtualOffice (VO), a system designed to enable workplace collaboration [4]. The system was tested extensively beforehand. It has been shown that videoconferencing needs a lot of testing, especially when there are a number of remote locations involved [5]. The study was carried out in the course of a two and a half day conference. The format was that of a typical research conference: keynotes, presentations, two tracks for parallel presentations during part of the conference (only one of these tracks implemented the virtual audience participation). The conference was attended by approximately 80 researchers at the real conference location and approximately 55 researchers in 12 remote locations, though we obtained data only from 37 participants from 8 locations in India. To manage the VE, there were two operators at the physical location (one primarily to handle the camera view, the other to handle audio and questions from virtual audience). At each remote location, a conference room was set up to broadcast the proceedings of the physical conference with one operator. The VO window was projected in the conference room showing a live video feed from the physical conference, the presentation document of the speaker and a graphical view of the Figure 1 (a) View of real auditorium (b) View seen by remote audience [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 79 IEEE Virtual Reality 2012 4-8 March, Orange County, CA, USA 978-1-4673-1246-2/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

Upload: basant-kumar

Post on 19-Mar-2017

217 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Mixing Real and Virtual Conferencing: Lessons Learned

Ajay Surendernath Geetika Sharma Ralph Schroeder Basant Kumar Pandey

Tata Consultancy Tata Consultancy University of Oxford Tata Consultancy

Services Ltd. Services Ltd. Services Ltd.

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a conference which linked several remote sites via a virtual environment so that the virtual audience could follow the presentations and interact with real presenters. The aim was to assess the feasibility of linking distributed virtual audiences to an ongoing conference event. Various types of data about the conference were gathered, such as participant observations, interviews and a survey of the audience, and analyzed. The main finding is that a number of ‘low tech’ improvements could be made that could greatly enhance this type of virtual conferencing. A related finding is that the visual fidelity of the environment and of the avatars plays a lesser role than other factors such as audio quality. Given the paucity of research on how virtual conferencing can substitute for travel, plus the urgency of this topic for environmental reasons, a number of suggestions are made for the implementation of remote virtual conference participation.

Index Terms: Collaborative virtual environments, real and virtual conferences, virtual environments.

1 INTRODUCTION

In this paper, we describe our experience of a technical conference which involved the participation of both a real as well as virtual audience from a dozen different locations. We present various types of data, including participant observation, informal interviews, and a survey of the remote virtual audience participants.

2 PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND MOTIVATION

A conference shares some of the features of collaborative virtual

environments (CVEs), like those used in education. There are a

number of studies of CVEs [1], though these have not specifically

focused on remote conference participation. Conferences also

share some features of distributed work meetings, which have

been far less studied [4]. Finally, there are similarities with virtual

exhibitions [3]. Conferences using CVEs are nevertheless

different from these three uses of CVEs in that they involve

speakers and audiences and bring people together for the

exchange of ideas. Yet virtual conferences have rarely been

investigated or evaluated [2].

The virtual/real conference that we describe here is novel in at

least five ways: one is the mix of the virtual and real audience.

The second is that the conference was carried out in a CVE which

was restricted to researchers from one organization, rather than in

an open-to-all environment like Second Life. Third, the

conference was sustained over the course of two and a half days.

Fourth, the conference brought together 12 locations where

participants were co-located but from where they could take part

in a single virtual lecture theatre with avatars. Fifth, the virtual

world was developed specifically for work inside the company.

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE SYSTEM AND EVENT

The virtual environment (VE) that was used was VirtualOffice

(VO), a system designed to enable workplace collaboration [4].

The system was tested extensively beforehand. It has been shown

that videoconferencing needs a lot of testing, especially when

there are a number of remote locations involved [5].

The study was carried out in the course of a two and a half day

conference. The format was that of a typical research conference:

keynotes, presentations, two tracks for parallel presentations

during part of the conference (only one of these tracks

implemented the virtual audience participation). The conference

was attended by approximately 80 researchers at the real

conference location and approximately 55 researchers in 12

remote locations, though we obtained data only from 37

participants from 8 locations in India. To manage the VE, there

were two operators at the physical location (one primarily to

handle the camera view, the other to handle audio and questions

from virtual audience). At each remote location, a conference room was set up to broadcast the proceedings of the physical conference with one operator. The VO window was projected in the conference room showing a live video feed from the physical conference, the presentation document of the speaker and a graphical view of the

Figure 1 (a) View of real auditorium (b) View seen by remote audience

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected]

79

IEEE Virtual Reality 20124-8 March, Orange County, CA, USA978-1-4673-1246-2/12/$31.00 ©2012 IEEE

virtual auditorium on a single projection screen. Multiple cameras were pre-configured in VO show views of the VE from different vantage points.

4 RESULTS

We begin with observations based on informal interviews with the

real audience and on participant observation at the real

conference.

Camera View of the Virtual Lecture Theatre: During the

conference, various views of the virtual lecture theatre, such as

that of the audience, the presentation screen and of avatars

moving around were displayed to both the real and virtual

audiences. The system would automatically focus on the avatar

asking a question whenever a remote attendee would do so. For

the real audience, the balance between a static virtual lecture

theatre and switching the view was important.

Virtual Speaker: There were look-alike or generic avatars of the

speaker in the virtual lecture theatre and the virtual audience.

There were a few occasions when the video stream became

unavailable due to low bandwidth at either the streaming out or

the receiving location. In such cases, having the speaker’s avatar

visible helped preserve a sense of continuity for the virtual

audience.

Recognition of questions from the virtual audience and turn-

taking: Speakers prioritized recognizing questions from the real

audience by a ratio of perhaps ten real to one avatar question.

Since avatars had their hands raised for many more questions, this

means that many questions from the virtual audience were not

answered. It was very difficult for the speaker to simultaneously

scan the virtual audience in addition to the scanning the real

audience to identify the raised hands of avatars. Turn-taking also

relates to following up on questions with a second comment or

question, and this proved almost impossible for the virtual

audience - whereas it is easy for the real audience. We now turn to the results of a survey which was completed by remote conference participants at eight remote locations with 37 responses to 15 multiple choice and open-ended questions. Most of the remote participants (29) filled out the survey in the first session of the virtual conference they attended. 8 filled out the survey on returning to the virtual conference for another session. When asked if they had used video conferencing tools such as WebEx [6] before, 30 said they had and 4 had not (3 did not answer). We also asked whether they preferred WebEx or the virtual world and why, and there were 12 roughly evenly divided responses (some pointed to advantages and disadvantages of both): those that preferred the virtual world mentioned the greater multimodality, independent control over presentation documents, interactivity and intuitiveness. The drawbacks of the virtual world were poor audio and video. Among those who preferred WebEx-type videoconferencing, the reasons included greater reliability, and better video and audio quality. A striking feature of the survey responses is how mixed and nuanced the answers were. This could indicate a validation of the usefulness of the questions, but more importantly suggests that remote participants recognized the benefits as well as the drawbacks of virtual conference participation. From other open ended questions asked, it was perceived that over half the participants found the audio to be of poor quality.

5 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN AND FUTURE WORK

Having learned a number of lessons from this conference, we now

describe a number of ways in which the problems that occurred

during the event could be overcome, and how future events of this

type could be socio-technically managed to enhance the

experience - both in terms of the effectiveness of the task and the

enjoyment of the social interaction.

Ways to Enhance Future Virtual Conferences: One feature

which could easily be implemented in future conference events is

allowing people to move between different parallel track

presentations. As long as all of them are captured on video and the

presentations are made available in different virtual lecture

theatres, avatars could freely move between them. Another useful

feature at mixed real/virtual conferences could be to allow real

audience members to go up to the screen and speak to avatars

whom they recognize during breaks.

Communication and Interaction Problems and Potential

Solutions: Apart from the technical problems, there are a number

of socio-technical management solutions. A critical problem for

participation by the virtual audience was to have their questions

recognized by the speaker. This was because the cognitive load on

the speaker to pay attention to and scan both the real and the

virtual audience for questions simultaneously was too large.

Further, it is easier to scan the real audience than the virtual one

since it is difficult to distinguish avatars with their hands raised in

a virtual lecture theatre displayed on a 2D screen. However, this

problem can easily be overcome: for example, there could be a

small flashing red light, either physically in the real lecture theatre

(perhaps on the speaker podium) or in the virtual lecture theatre.

6 CONCLUSION

The main conclusion of this paper is: more socio-technical

management, and innovative – if artificial - solutions in this

management, are needed. We have identified a number of

problems of mixed/virtual conferencing, and proposed a number

of such solutions for future implementation and further research.

Much of the debate in VEs has been about ‘realism’. As we have

seen, however, this was not a concern of most of the remote

participants or those at the real conference. Both the survey,

informal interviews, and participant observation point to the

conclusion that rather than focus on ‘realism’, the design of

remote conference participation via a VE should focus on how to

create a rich, lively and engaging experience both at the virtual

and the real sites, even if these ‘artificialities’ depart from

‘realism’ and introduce effects that detract from realism.

Introducing artificialities into the VE is something that users

might benefit from, and it is likely – though this is a topic for

further research - that these artificialities would not detract from

the experience of remote or real participation.

REFERENCES

[1] Churchill, E., Snowdon, D. and Munro, A. (eds.) 2001. Collaborative

Virtual Environments: Digital Spaces and Places for Interaction. London: Springer.

[2] Damer, B. et al. (2000). Conferences and trade shows in inhabited

virtual worlds: a case study of Avatars 98&99, in J.-C. Hedin (ed.), Virtual Worlds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer, pp.1-11.

[3] Penumarthy, S. and Boerner, K. (2006). Analysis and Visualization of

Social Diffusion Patterns in Three-Dimensional Virtual Worlds, in

Schroeder, R. &Axelsson, A.’s (Eds.), Avatars at Work and Play: Collaboration and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments, London:

Springer, 39-61.

[4] Sharma, G.,Shroff, G. and Dewan, P.(2011). Workplace Collaboration

in a 3D Virtual Office. International Symposium on VR Innovation 2011.

[5] Sonnenwald, D. (2006). Collaborative Virtual Environments for

Scientific Collaboration: Technical and Organizational Design

Frameworks, in Schroeder, R. &Axelsson, A.’s (Eds.), Avatars at Work and Play: Collaboration and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments,

London: Springer, 63-96.

[6] WebEx, Web conferencing. URL: http://www.webex.com

80