While considering the elements of effective design in virtual worlds, I am frequently reminded of street signs; their design is the best example I can find for a practical convention. Providing information, aiding in navigation; they inform users in a reliable manner. Without some consistency, these objects would not be as effective.

A sign like any other?

What can the design of an Interstate sign tell us about navigation in the virtual world?

Even the color communicates. If you are familiar with roadsigns in the U.S.A., then—like me—you might have to look twice at this picture. Without its standard colors, this sign is less effective.

I discovered another list of design criteria in Caleb Booker’s 11 Best Practices for Corporate Builds, and signage made his list, too. In fact, several items he mentions appear to apply in the design of educational content:

• Signs: Text is the enemy. Graphics are your friend.
• Don’t hand out text files (Notecards) expecting people will be grateful. Use video (machinima) or basic simplified signs to instruct.
• More on signs – use legible fonts, few words – similar guidelines as PPT slides

So, they have been added to the list of issues.

That is a new link. All of the notes posted at the SimTeach wiki have been sorted and moved into a new Wikispaces site. Also, a new page has been created in this domain to provide an overview; it is simply titled Usability.

However, many of those issues represent aspects of design that are either complex or broad, such as user experience and overall quality. Those issues will require a degree of analysis that is beyond the initial reach of this project. After removing those complex issues, six categories of simple design issues remain.

Navigation-Content

This category pertains to the purpose of navigation aids. What assistance does a user require to ensure that the entire design is experienced? Do sufficient visual aids exist to ensure that they are exposed to the entire build, whether by moving their avatar or camera position? Are there any side trips or particular camera angles to notice? Are there different paths for different users?

Navigation-Distribution

This category pertains to the placement of navigation aids. Are there sufficient signs, pointers, and teleporters at the central landing zone? Are these aids present throughout the build, allowing users to easily move within the site? Is the particular location and placement (position and orientation relative to objects) of each individual aid optimal. Are there too many?

Navigation-Presentation

This category pertains to the appearance of navigation aids. Are these aids obvious? Do they have a consistent style (colors, shapes, iconography)? Does their design distinguish them from other objects and aids? Does their design provide sufficient contrast without being obtrusive or incompatible?

Information-Content

This category pertains to the purpose of informational displays. What descriptions are necessary to explain the elements within the actual build? What information is implied by—or, can be extrapolated from—the design, or from specific parts the design?

Information-Distribution

This category pertains to the placement of informational displays. Is the information pertinent to the immediate location within the build? (Don’t tell me about the lions at the landing zone. Perhaps just tell me that there are lions, and then show me how to get there.) Are these aids present throughout the build, informing users as they move around the site? Is the particular location and placement (position relative to objects) optimal for each individual aid. Are there too many of these displays? Could some information be better supplied via notecard or external source?

Information-Presentation

This category pertains to the appearance of informational displays. Are these design elements obvious? Is the text readable? Do the displays have a consistent style (colors, shapes, typography)? Does their design distinguish them from other objects and aids? Does each display occupy sufficient area without being obtrusive or out of proportion?

This list is not exhaustive, the design issues given here are examples. Still, these basic categories contain issues which are simple enough that analysis is more likely to generate results, and the list is small enough in number to simplify the content evaluation process.

Before a design principle becomes a standard, it is likely to exist as a convention.

Whew!

This project does not need to devise new strategies and then work for their adoption. It should simply identify solutions that are already in place, and recognize where repetition has proven their effectiveness. So, the process that is emerging looks like this:

1. Identify the stumbling blocks
2. Deduce sensible guidlines for each case
3. Search for instances where solutions already exist

Moving right along…

In an earlier post, I suggested the goal of developing a checklist for content creation. Two such lists have been discovered. One is short; but ample, given the context of its delivery (an interview). It is a list of design criteria offered by Markus Breuer in the blog post titled METAVERSE08 Usability in Second Life. The other list is provided by Eloise Pasteur in the form of three web documents (1, 2, 3). These criteria apply in the evaluation of learners’ projects; but, since the lesson was about building in SL, they provide a practical set of design issues.

A review of design and assessment criteria provided by these two sources has resulted in a classification scheme for design elements. I will post the categories here. Then, you will find the bulk of the issues raised by the two sources mentioned above, along with designated categories.

Categories of design elements

• Nc = Navigation (Content) – addresses the purpose of navigational aids
• Nd = Navigation (Distribution) – addresses the placement of navigational aids
• Np = Navigation (Presentation) – addresses the appearance of navigational aids
• Ic = Information (Content) – addresses the purpose of instructional text
• Id = Information (Distribution) – addresses the placement of instructional text
• Ip = Information (Presentation) – addresses the appearance of instructional text
• B* = Design of Buildings – addresses the need to consider interiors, tight spaces, thematic continuity and distinction
• Q* = Quality of design – addresses the overall quality of the content

User-dependent Issues

• UI* = User Interface – addresses the need to adjust viewer settings, preferences
• UE* = User Experience – addresses the level of expertise required

* These categories represent design issues that may fall beyond the scope of this study. They are included here due to their appearance in the original source materials.

Design Issues [category]

• Make signs readable from the point where people arrive when teleporting [Ip]
• If your cool architecture makes it had for avatars to navigate: offer them help. [Nd]
• Design for avatars that have a cam 2m behind and 1m above them. [B]
• Don’t lead people into dead ends or hide access points. [B]
• Help people find orientation [Ip]
• Help people get their processes straight: what can I do? [Ic]
• Bot that give cryptic instructions are not helpful [Misc.]
• Tell users exactly what you need them to do [Ic]
• Price tags and orientation maps are cool, too [Ic]

This list was suggested by Markus Breuer (link above). The following list was compiled from the rubrics offered by Eloise Pasteur (links above).

• Is it clear where the avatar is supposed to go on arrival? [Nd,Id,Ip,Ic]
• Is the theme of the build made clear immediately on arrival? [Ip]
• Is it clear for whom the build is intended? [Ic]
• Is there a stated list of objectives? [Ic]

• Is it clear which path the avatar should take or the options that are available? [Nc]
• Are avatars encouraged to change environment settings to make the most of the build? [UI]
• Is navigation within the build obvious? [Np]
• Is it easy to find the start again if appropriate? [Nd,Np]
• Is it easy to get between different parts of a build, e.g. via teleports? [Nd,Nc]
• Can avatars exercise choice in navigation? [Nc]
• Are the different parts of the build adequately distinguished? [B]
• Does the build cater satisfactorily for different avatar sizes? [B]
• Does the build cater for social use, e.g. by pairs or groups of avatars? [B]
• Is the build camera-friendly, i.e. the avatar camera stays within walls and isn’t subject to “bounce” and newbies aren’t forced to use complex camera movements? [B]
• Is the build interactive? [Q]
• Is interactivity related to the topic? [Q]
• Is interactivity varied? [Q]
• Does the build exploit the potential to provide an alternative to real-life experiences? [Q]
• Does the build make use of the third, z dimension? [Q]
• Is the build “kinetic”, i.e. does it encourage movement and navigation? [Q]
• Do the structural elements used have relevance to the topic? [Q]
• Is there sufficient variety to the build? [Q]
• How accurate and topical is the information provided? [Ic]
• Are there any accidental examples of cognitive dissonance, e.g. fluids appearing to flow uphill. [Q]
• Is there use of humour where appropriate? [Q]

• Avatar skills: Can the objectives be mastered with students having their current level of avatar SL skills, or is there time and significant justification to spend time to develop said skills? [UE]
• Attention: How easy or difficult is it for you to stay focused in this environment? To the material being presented? Is something creating distraction or intellectual “noise?” [Q]
• Comprehension: Are the messages, visual or linguistic, comprehensible? Is the vocabulary too complex to follow? Do the communication forms (IM, chat, and voice) adequately facilitate needed communication? Is it clear how the visuals relate to the subject and do they help to understand it? [Q]

Each one of these issues may be addressed later, or it may not; and, any one may lead to a specific guideline (as part of the “process” mentioned earlier). All of this is now open for discussion, too.

In the first post in this series, I shared the basic hunch driving this project by asking the question:

Can VW design be informed by the study of usability in early web page design?

In this post, I will test that premise by jumping into an early article by Jakob Nielson, then finding and dissecting a web page issue. I hope to get at the heart of effective design, potentially putting my pointer on a pulsating principle of effective communication.

Mr. Nielson is “a leading web usability consultant” who holds 79 patents in the United States, primarily for making the Internet easier to use (Wikipedia). His site appears to be focused on corporate web design (tag line: usable information technology); but, corporate web pages need to communicate, so what was learned there should also apply in the design of educational content.

And so, in I go…

As his first point in the seminal Top Ten Mistakes in Web Design (1996), Nielson chose to advise against using frames in a website. But wait, we’re talking about Second Life®, and we don’t got no stinkin’ frames.

Or do we?

Reading that first point in the article, one learns that the problem was how frames “break the fundamental user model of the web page.”

“All of a sudden, you cannot bookmark the current page and return to it.”

Sound familiar?

This is a navigation issue, and it does speak to one aspect of design in our virtual world.

About Land window in Second Life®

Breaking the user model with frames is the result of disregarding the user’s prerogative to control access. In Second Life, I can uncheck a checkbox in the About Land window and prevent you from creating a Landmark (see image). A landmark for a SL location is the virtual world equivalent to a bookmark. It is even a drop-down menu, just like in my browser. If I want to return to a location later, what do I do? Select Menu > World > Create Landmark Here. I can also assign a landing point for teleporting into the sim. This is another way to affect navigation. So, in a remote sense, SL has given us frames with which to work.

But, we can generalize this navigation issue further; and, this is where I find paydirt…

The usability exception for Nielson was that frames break the user model…you cannot bookmark the current page. More basically, this is saying that we should consider the users and provide them with an appropriate level of navigational control. That could be important; something to think about during planning.

Consider the following scenario…

You are strolling through my virtual zoo. You come to the Lion’s Den, and notice that the lion is so well crafted and realistic that you want to send a landmark to everyone in your contact list. So, you pull down “Menu > World > Create Landmark Here” only to learn that I have disabled this option. Why would I do that? Perhaps the lion’s den is the final step in a sequence, a scavenger hunt or a puzzle to be solved. Maybe the lion’s den is the pièce de résistance, and seeing that first would spoil a visitor for the rest of the tour.

Maybe I just want you to rezz near the Gift Shop.

The point is this: depending on the context of the build, you may—or may not—want to restrict a user’s ability to create a landmark.

What if I do not restrict teleporting to a landing point in my zoo? A user might rezz in the Lion’s Den where he will become dinner (and immediately end up at his home location, bloody and confused, because I have scripted my lion with a PounceOnDetect function and buiilt my zoo in a combat sim).

Now, with this navigation-control issue stirred up, other usability questions arise:

• What criteria lead one to see landmark or teleport restriction as an effective design strategy?
• Should a user be informed about the restriction, and how?
• Should an alternative be explained? (”To return to this location, enter at the Landing Zone and look for the Lions Den teleporter at the landing zone.” Or, more simply, reinforce the meaning of the link at the landing zone by repeating the graphic icon at the lion’s den display.)

I am optimistic that comparison with the Internet can inform the analysis of usability in virtual worlds; the purpose of this exercise was not to elaborate on land access. By considering a single design issue that was first raised thirteen years ago, I have identified another aspect of virtual world design that affects a learner’s experience.

Still, I do think I will open the wiki and add that point above.

The purpose of this project is to explore a variety of virtual world spaces in Second Life®, to experience the effectiveness or utility of each design; and then, to identify the characteristics that shaped that result.

Anyone is welcome to participate; invitations are being made via the SLED listserv, a RezEd forum thread, and numerous emails to individuals. I have begun to organize some information at the SimTeach wiki; but, am also weighing the options of building at Wikispaces, or even by starting a Google Group. I would be interested to learn of your perspective regarding these sites, or others.

Usability gauges the degree to which an object is

• More efficient to use—it takes less time to accomplish a particular task
• Easier to learn—operation can be learned by observing the object
• More satisfying to use

(from Wikipedia )

Particular aspects of the user’s experience interest me. I aim to identify those characteristics of virtual world design that make for effective communication; or, find examples where the message gets fuzzy…then try to imagine alternatives.

I do not plan to evaluate entire builds.

I am not in this to throw stones. Rather, I will be observing discrete elements like instructional text displays, navigation elements, and media interfaces; any object a user engages to consume the content. I will be looking at the color of a sign, the shape of a prim, and the placement of objects in relation to one another. But, where my view of features is narrowed, my reference to the history of web design will be generalized. When reviewing the history of web design I will seek out the underlying principle of effective communication by looking past the device of any particular element (see references to Nielson, first post).

On review, my use of the term “standards” may be ambitious. Will any single principle apply in every case? Can a group of educators and designers agree on a set of criteria, enough to benefit a significant number of users? What can come from discussion about usability?

What I am imagining is a list of design criteria; a content creation checklist. But, since my ideas just scratch the surface, I will continue to contact folks who might have 2¢ to add.

You are already reading this…who have I left out?