Usability in Virtual World Instructional Design
Content Classifications | Posts | Potential Guidelines | Links
This page is an overview; gathering the most pertinent information, links, and references developed during a personal study of usability and effective instructional design.The project is focused within the virtual world of Second Life™ and instances of OpenSim.
The process starts with a visit to any of a variety of spaces to observe the effectiveness or utility of each space. (Perhaps you can suggest a location that is noteworthy.) Given a particular space to consider—good design or bad—the next step is to identify the design characteristics that shape its effect.
Premise: In the absence of standards (or conventions) for educational content, usability will become more of a problem as we increasingly rely on virtual world design to deliver and support instruction.
Project Goals
- The collaborative examination of educational content in SL
- The documentation of examples of instructional design elements, both good and bad
- The creation of a list of criteria for content creation and effective instructional design
Several other sites are being used to support this project, most notably a Wikispaces site that contains ideas and observations logged during the study. Specific design criteria are being categorized.
Classifying Content
Known issues are being culled from several sources, along with a statistically insignificant, highly biased, non-random, low-overhead tour of educational content by the author. A simple classification system has been devised to help manage information as it is developed.
Content types: intended audience
-
Self serve, asynchronous educational content
Synchronous educational content (subject or topic specific)
Content that facilitates the synchronous delivery of instruction
-
Spaces: amphitheater, classroom, building, campus
Tools: slide presenters, HUDs, question queues, polling (”clickers”)
Known issues also represented two basic types of subject matter: content that helps new users acclimate to the platform (or technology) itself, and content that delivers information/media specific to a standard subject area or topic of study (such as life science or WWII). But this distinction may be arbitrary, since education about the platform is still education.
Degrees of engagement
Educational content can be designed so that users are expected to become involved in the learning activity. This property of content can be defined by its two extremes:
* passive (static) – designs with which users explore/observe/consume, but do not interact
* active (generative) – designs in which users create content or even become an element of the content (RP)
Degrees of object animation
Educational content can be designed so that users observe a dynamic, ever-changing display of objects during the learning activity. This property of content can be defined by its two extremes:
* static – designs that have the same appearance from one moment to the next
* dynamic – designs that are interactive, responding to user input or system cues; these designs may have prims that change color, texture, size, or orientation; prims that rotate or move; prims that chat, send IMs or display floating text; prims that play sounds, emit particles, and activate or alter media streams; prims that become visible or transparent.
Categories of design elements
Generalized from content criteria found in EP, Otherland, and one mad dash through the grid. Focus will narrow to the first six of these, which are elaborated in this post.
-
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
* The last four categories represent characteristics that may fall beyond the scope of this study, initially. They are included here due to their appearance in the original source materials.
Posts (chronologically)
-
Usability and Virtual World Design
First post in the series, describes purpose and introduces general approach
Virtual World Usability: Two Examples
“…two examples of communication in virtual world design; one is very effective, and the other leaves me scratching my head.”
Virtual World Usability: Purpose
A brief discussion of the aim of this study
Virtual World Usability: A test case
Testing the initial premise in first post by studying an early issue in web design.
Virtual World Usability: Convention and categories
This process gels; design issues are reduced to categories
Virtual World Usability: Simple design issues
Project focus is narrowed to several categories of content, design issues
Usability: Site maps (low hanging fruit)
Return to original Nielson “Mistakes” article, suggestion for use of site maps
Potential Guidelines
- Provide users with an appropriate level of control over access to the space: are landmark restriction and landing point assignment necessary? (related post)
External Links (from posts)
- Scoring rubrics for SL building (1, 2, 3), shared by Eloise Pasteur
www.flickr.com
|
