In virtual worlds such as Second Life, every user has the potential to become an interface designer; indeed, the success of Second Life relies upon the creativity of its user community. Unfortunately, too often inexperienced designers fail to critically evaluate their creations in virtual worlds, and combined with the inherent limitations of the system, this results in user frustration, a sense that a task is taking “too long” to accomplish, and ultimately, an unwillingness to participate in Second Life. Prior research explored the messages the tools of design send within Second Life–what metaphors are successful, and which are not; how those metaphors play upon affordances already created in the “real world;” and ultimately how the confirmation or violation of user expectations of object behavior impacts the affective state of the user. This paper will use a short case study and additional literature to introduce critical design practices in interaction design, and propose design solutions for Second Life artifact creators.

Literature Review

Metaphors are excellent tools, and lend themselves exceptionally well to 3D virtual worlds, by virtue of the system’s ability to mimic real world objects. In Second Life, these metaphors can evoke powerful positive affective responses in users, but have the potential to also cause confusion in users.My prior research investigates how metaphors confirm or violate user expectations; if an object behaves in an unexpected way, then this is more likely to cause a negative response. However, the greater point is that metaphors are tools to be used, not design frameworks in and of themselves. To that end, this paper looks at two key methodologies–pragmatic design and interaction criticism–to identify the means of approaching design in virtual worlds.

Pragmatic design is an established design concept; essentially, designers should work with an intended user response already in place. These responses are varied, but can be sensual, emotional, spatio-temporal, and compositional in nature, in addition to cognitive and analytical responses. Sensual responses are based on physical appeal; emotional responses, similarly, are affective reactions to design. Spatio-temporal responses are situational in nature–how a user responds to design within the context of a place and time. Finally, a compositional response pertains to how well a user makes sense of the how and why of a given design. Incorporating all these responses during the design planning and evaluation period is critical for more than simply virtual world software; indeed, designers of all stripes must consider the impact an aesthetic or functional design will have upon its audience. Much of Second Life anticipates the first three design responses already, as are evident in the lushly detailed zen gardens, fantasy sims, academic campuses, and government outreach islands like NASA and NOAA. However, the compositional aspects of design–the narrative construction of experience–are sometimes overlooked in Second Life. I posit that when a user fails to make sense of how or why something behaves as it does in Second Life, it is due to a design which does not effectively use metaphors, or take advantage of the system’s unique affordances or features.

Interaction criticism adds a practical and reflective component to activity theory and activity-based design–through prototyping, evaluation, and then expert judgement of a system’s aesthetic, emotional, and experiential impact. Rather than approach these highly interpretive aspects of design with academic analysis, interaction criticism advocates an analysis based on a critic’s expertise, which parallels the skills of art or literary critics. As Bardzell & Bardzell perceive interaction criticism, design is an inherently communicative act; thus, the evaluation of traditionally rhetorical concepts as part of the critical process is appropriate.

Methodology

This experiment required a single user to visit a library in Second Life and meet a simple objective–in this instance, to take a screen capture of the user’s avatar reading a specific book. Audio capture was taken using Apple’s Garageband; during analysis the researcher used Ambrosia’s WireTap Studio to mark instances of increasing frustration. The researcher lists the following characteristics of frustration:

1. Verbal cues: “I don’t get it” or expressed lack of understanding.
2. Auditory cues: sighs, nervous laughs, or other vocal stops.
3. Behavioral cues: lengthy (in excess of 30 seconds) breaks in communication or interaction

For the purposes of this study, frustration directly related to hardware or network problems–notably “rezzing” issues–are excluded from data analysis.

Results

The task instructions are to take a picture of the avatar sitting and reading a book at a library. The subject interprets this as a parallel set of tasks to completing it in the real world: find the book, then return to a seat and open it. In actuality, the task is much simpler: since the chair is scripted, then the subject need only sit in the chair to read the book automatically. As a result, the subject needed approximately 18 minutes to complete the task; the overwhelming majority of that time was spent browsing individual titles, though other objects provided distraction at various points as well.

Consequently, the subject demonstrates progressive frustration and uncertainty throughout the exercise. At several points, the subject expresses her confusion or uncertainty about a given task, and as her annoyance becomes more pronounced, she goes so far as to say “well, that was misleading” as a criticism of the task’s instructions. Additionally, the subject began to sigh impatiently, use more vocal stops such as “umm” or “well,” and pauses in interaction became increasingly common, and of longer duration.

Eventually, with some additional guidance from the instructor, the subject discovers the instructions for use of the scripted chair, and begins to leverage her prior experience with Second Life to properly equip her avatar and complete the task. Repeatedly, the subject expresses annoyance, though this seems interchangeably aimed at either the system itself, the design of the task, and herself.

These figures display markers the researcher added to the audio recording, which identify instances of different vocal cues or expressions by the subject throughout the task. Clearly, these expressions become increasingly frequent as the task progresses and the subject begins to experience difficulty completing the task.

Of note, two clear expectation violations are present within the recording–one positive violation and one negative one. The subject expressed pleasant surprise at discovering she could move her cursor over titles to get information; while this is common system behavior in Second Life, sometimes it is unreliable due to either network connectivity or the designer’s intent. The other expectation violation pertains to the discovery that an avatar is actually an automated service; since the subject initially identified the avatar as an individual, the discovery that she was, in fact, “a robot” resulted in modest confusion and mild disappointment.

Several times throughout the exercise, the subject expressed a wish for a catalog to locate books with. The subject expressed frustration at being unable to search for an object’s location efficiently, and wished to have an index that would facilitate locating materials. The lack of efficiency in discovering objects, coupled with Second Life’s slow response, led to increasing frustration on the part of the subject.

Discussion

Given the problems the subject experienced completing the exercise, and the clear miscommunication between user, experiment designer, and environment designer, some potential solutions and alternatives present themselves. These solutions may be undertaken by either the user-designer, by Second Life’s engineers, or by a standards-based collaboration between both entities. First, designers should leverage the affordances unique and already present within Second Life. Second Life allows objects to more or less advertise their function via scripts; indeed, floating text which encourages users to “take a copy” of an object, “donate money” or “Sit here” are common. The immediate problem might have been resolved with “sit and read!” floating over the chair in the task. In a greater sense, Second Life’s engineers at Linden Labs need to develop a standard means of knowing how to interact with an object without “touching” it, similar to the cursor/color change which indicates a clickable URL in a web page. While Second Life is partially there–text is often used as an indicator, and when mousing over specific objects such as chairs the cursor changes–perhaps a more immediately obvious scheme should be used.

The inherent difficulty in SL is that most objects can be manipulated in some way or another; the question is bridging the link between manipulation and completing specific tasks with the object. Second Life is far from perfect in this instance; while the author can reach down, pick up a scarf, and put it around her, her Second Life avatar must first pick up the object, put it in her inventory, take it from her inventory and drop it on her avatar. These steps are not intuitive to novice or even necessarily to experienced users, and the process must become more streamlined.

Another option is to improve access with search techniques. Second Life’s search functionality is extremely limited, and

Figure 4. In this mockup of a local search interface for Second Life, search results and terms are highlighted visually.

when seeking information from an inanimate artifact–such as reading text on a poster, or looking for an object–the user is restricted to time-consuming visual browsing. A catalog–such as the one posited by the subject–can prove useful, but without specific location coordinates included in the database, may have only limited appeal. An alternative solution would be an “environmental search” that leverages existing object metadata–with a simple text field, users could complete Google-like keyword searches to find objects located nearby. A mock-up of this display is included here.

This design lends itself well to Second Life, since not only does it introduce a new quick searching mechanism, but a bare bones keyword search interface is already familiar to users who have already used a web search engine. By using a visual indicator–like a glowing outline around relevant items–and maintaining transparency, users suddenly gain new abilities to quickly find what they are looking for, without systematic visual inspection of the screen before them.

However, is a totally predictable virtual environment necessarily desireable? Wright et. al. discusses the benefit of enchantment in design–while enchantment is an immeasurable quality, designers still aim to inspire it in their products. This is especially clear in the work Second Life creators produce, ranging from extraordinary apparel to astonishing landscape objects. If users are not forced by systemic design to explore the environment, and instead can take a shortcut to find what they think they need, is the opportunity for enchantment lost? These are questions outside the realm of this paper, and potentially beyond academic study.

Conclusion

Summary

Ultimately, this case study demonstrates some of the inherent problems of a system which sometimes hides the intent or functionality of an artifact, and highlights the potential for a poorly designed system to create frustration in a user. Some potential solutions, such as a local search display or development of uniform object standards might alleviate the situation and go far to retain users and improve the overall experience of navigating Second Life. Incorporating theoretical elements of design as part of the Second Life creation process, however impossible it is to enforce, would go far towards improving user comprehension as well.

Areas for Future Research

Clearly, an excellent area for future research is presented by the search prototype. Future research should focus on building a prototype or functional mockup, testing with a limited group of users, and evaluating the results, time a user spends searching versus exploring, and whether the search interface has any effect upon frustration levels of a given task. Moreover, search features should be explored and tested as well: should searching be limited to keywords? What metadata should be included in searching? What effect will search interfaces have upon designers–will designers begin to use targeted keywords in their content, in order to rise in search ranks? All these questions are worth pursuing by future researchers.

Additionally, future research should continue to develop a framework for interaction criticism for evaluation of interface aesthetics and appeal. To do so, communication and rhetorical theory might be a starting point for future researchers, especially if one approaches interface design as a communication medium between designer and user. Some rhetorical techniques and communication assessment methods are already present within HCI, therefore using one to enrich the critical language of the other should be possible.

Value of Study

On a personal note, using Second Life as a virtual world study arena gave me the opportunity to being exploring user interface design from a theoretical and pragmatic perspective, with relatively low barriers to entry. Since the interface itself has significant room for improvement, identifying why elements don’t work, and how other users interpret the interface is a useful critical experience–proposing solutions to these problems is even more valuable. On the other hand, my interaction with other Second Life citizens outside my small community has been very limited, and the communication theorist in me would love to conduct a more detailed study of communication patterns between users, as well as work on true experiment design.

Metaphors are key to creating affordances between a user and representational objects in computer systems. In this instance, metaphors are the conceptual tools which allow users to interact with a computer more efficiently–much has been made of the visual desktop metaphor, which enabled an untold number of novice computer users to make sense of how a computer can be used, organized, and eventually fit seamlessly within everyday life. However, metaphors can be used poorly, hinder user experience, and ultimately confuse the user, thus preventing affordances from forming. 3D virtual worlds rely heavily upon metaphorical design, but how effectively are the metaphors used? This paper will examine several examples of metaphorical design present within Second Life, the extent to which they rely upon and create affordances, and prospective directions for future designers of virtual worlds to pursue.

Literature Review

Existing research on metaphors, affordances, and frustration in HCI establishes the significance and value of evaluating each of these components in academic and practical design circles (though whether these concepts are put into practice is a different question). The links between each of these concepts are also well established, and this paper will attempt to put these theoretical principles within the context of virtual world computing, and how its unique challenges and opportunities impact and shape design mechanisms for future developers and researchers.

Metaphors, within the context of this report, are the essential building blocks of a 3D virtual environment. Metaphors have long been established as significant tools for user-centered design, dating as far back as the development of the desktop in the early 1980s. Indeed, a substantial amount of all visual operating systems depend upon metaphors to communicate their functions, and continue to evolve: in fact, as this researcher works on her paper, she used the “corkboard” function of her writing application to organize symbolic notecards with metadata for each segment of the paper. Many metaphors in computer systems have themselves become naturally intuitive, as long term users and younger generations feel increasingly at ease with menus, toolbars, buttons, stacks, docks, and more conceptualizations. Clearly, the development of the metaphor in computer systems is one of the most crucial aspects of human-computer interaction, and was a key enabler for new computer users.

However, metaphorical design is not in and of itself positive or helpful, and the history of HCI is littered with bad ideas and good intentions. One of the classic examples of inappropriate use of metaphors in design is Microsoft’s “Bob” application, designed to make users feel “more at home” with a personal computer. “Bob” was a “2 1/2”-D environment–a 2D environment designed to give users a sense of depth, and depicted a cozy living room with a fireplace, animated pets, and furniture. Unfortunately for Microsoft, “Bob” ultimately became a failed metaphor, since it created user frustration and dissatisfaction. This example illustrates briefly the power of a metaphor to either mitigate or create user frustration, which in turn has significant bearing upon the affordances users employ when negotiating computer systems.

Affordances can be generally defined as the properties of an object which make its function and meaning implicit to the user, and is a phenomenon which is born from interaction between the two. Essentially, it is how users instinctively know a button can be “pushed,” and how to manipulate objects in a virtual world. Consequently, if an object presents no affordances to the user, then an object’s implicit meaning must be learned.

Depending on a variety of factors–including learning aptitude, environmental factors, and system design–this learning process may be either productive or a source of frustration (or both). Within virtual world design, users must orient themselves within a novel environment; as new abilities and experiences are discovered and learned, users can take advantage of the new affordances to apply to unfamiliar activities. Appropriate metaphors employed by the designers make this process of learning, internalizing, and applying affordances less frustrating and more productive.

Log Overview

The logs included in this paper’s analysis focus on the following tasks:

Today, Amazon announced the Kindle 2, which is a significant enough update that plenty of folks seem intrigued by it (I suspect because it’s now “not too ugly” compared to “ugly even by ’80s design standards”). I had a Kindle for a few months on loan from work, and spent a fair amount of time testing it out. I never wrote down my thoughts in a single spot, and where better but here?

The Kindle Experience

According to a fair amount of library literature, product reviews, and schlubs on the Internet, the challenge of eBooks is creating an experience that effectively mimics reading a physical book. Some of this logic is apparent in the Kindle 1′s design, given its tapered profile and “book-like” dimensions, as well as the use of e-Ink instead of an LCD screen. Here’s the problem, though–I don’t think that’s a realistic parallel. Reading a physical book is a far more sensory experience than simply scanning words on a screen; physical books spark all kinds of cognitive responses. Think about it–how does your favorite paperback novel feel in your hands? How does an old book smell compared to a new one? What do the marks of your affection do to the physical copy? No eBook reader could match those expectations, and so a new paradigm for electronic reading needs to be adopted.

So independent of the Kindle’s ability to imitate a book-reading experience, how does it hold up? e-Ink is promising technology, and I never noticed eyestrain while using the Kindle (the same isn’t true for my computer screens). Scalable text sizes are also a godsend for people like me, with low vision acuity and corrective lenses. I could read a couple hundred pages of book in a single sitting, which is roughly what I ordinarily read in a particularly good paperback. My first test book was A Clash of Kings, which I’ve read before with moderate detail, and which is also about a bazillion pages long. I also chose ACoK to test other functionality–because of my short-lived podcast, I kept extensive notes on each book in the ASOIAF series (yes, really), and needed to test bookmarking and notetaking. As a result, I identified my single biggest gripe with the Kindle v.1:

The keys really, really suck.

Compare with me for a moment: I’ve used an iPhone for about a year and a half now, which is a substantially smaller keyboard, and yet is both speedier and more comfortable to use than the Kindle’s flat, angular, and seriously unpleasant keypad. It’s a shame that note-taking is so difficult–I’ve long harbored the fantasy of using a Kindle to store all my textbooks, but if I can’t annotate, then there’s no real point.

Almost as much a deal breaker is the unpredictable behavior of PDFs. Since the Kindle doesn’t have native support for PDF documents (and v.2 doesn’t remedy this), PDF documents have to go through an awkward email “conversion” to show up on the Kindle. This isn’t free, although the cost is negligible at $0.25, but it doesn’t always work–in my tests, PDFs with columns, large images, or even substantial pages (like a 300 page PDF download of a textbook) all came out close to unusable.

That said, the Kindle v.2 looks as though the keyboard has been upgraded, and it seems to now be chasing the iPhone/iPod Touch in style, if not functionality–it’s slimmer, and rounded at the edges. It demonstrates a slight shift in design metaphors, at least, though I’m not certain going head to head with Apple on form factor is necessarily a good idea, especially if the long-cherished fantasy of the iTablet becomes a reality (in my vision, essentially a 4×7 iPod Touch).

On the other hand, Amazon has recently hinted at putting the Kindle interface onto mobile devices, which indicates to me that the hardware isn’t their first priority. The pure genius of the Kindle is apparent after spending about 20 minutes toodling around the Kindle storefront–I probably bought more straight pleasure reading books in two months than I had the entire year prior. The Kindle’s preview functionality is almost deviously generous, by often giving away 50+ pages of content for free. That amount is certainly enough quality time with a book to have some investment in how it ends, and well, that “buy now” button is so tantalizingly convenient at the end of a free section. Putting this on mobile devices, coupled with a moderately enjoyable reading experience, is a winning combination.

Much has been made of the Kindle as a library device, and on the one hand, it could be done. If Amazon partnered with libraries or major ILS vendors to offer a “check-out” period depending on the digital holdings of the library, then it’s possible that libraries could use the Kindle system to provide e-book checkouts. However, so many obstacles block this development right now that it’s unlikely we’ll see such a system in the near future. I don’t think it’s viable for a library to buy and loan out a fleet of Kindles, which has been proposed some places; similarly, I don’t see the Kindle device hitting critical mass among library patrons for quite some time. Licensing, DRM, and other legal restrictions and obligations need to be worked out; borrowing history would be potentially exposed to Amazon; most importantly, the financial cost of such a partnership would–at least right now–be disadvantageous to both parties. eBooks aren’t cheap for libraries, and I’m not certain Amazon is prepared to or interested in developing a subscription model that meets the needs of libraries.

That said, the Kindle is a promising device and service in a lot of arenas. Unfortunately, at this point I still think the Kindle is a toy for geeks and hobbyists, not a mainstream device. However, as it matures and develops, and gains an increasing market share of eBook services and devices, it might become a viable tool for plenty of people looking to carry all their books in a slim little device.

The thing is, what they told me caused the liquid damage–green tea or maybe Mountain Dew–are two things I never, ever drink. I have no doubts that the damage is there, but because it was patently not caused by me, it’s a little frustrating on this count–Applecare doesn’t care at all who caused it, so long as its there. As for who caused it, I hate to speculate on that, and instead I prefer to think it came that way (I did buy it refurbished, and it did come with a rather noticeable bend in the front of the chassis).

As a result of this, I thought I would post something of a guide for other customers who need to visit a Genius Bar. On the whole, I think Apple has some of the best repair and technical service in the world, and having been part of that as a iPhone Genius, I speak with a bit of authority on how to talk to the folks on the other side of your computer.

Please note: these are not Apple’s corporate secrets, but more an insight into communicating appropriately.

1. Nobody there wants to void your warranty.

I think a lot of people are shy about their computer problems, fearing that it’s going to be THEIR fault somehow. Sure, sometimes it is–and I’ll talk about how to approach that–but the Genius you talk to will, as a rule, try as much as she’s allowed to fix your computer. The first step, though, is walking in with a broken computer, iPod, or iPhone.

2. If a problem has been coming on for a while, keep notes.

Part of the Genius process is to take notes on the condition of the machine and previous actions by the user–this doesn’t always apply, but it helps them diagnose the problem. If you’re experiencing a quirk, which develops into a full blown problem, then keep a brief log of the problem, and if applicable, what you’ve done yourself to fix it (such as a reinstallation of the OS, or on mobile devices, resets and restores). Accurate notes like this also make the repair process faster and easier, as well as the initial appointment.

3. Be honest.

Laptops see a lot of wear and tear–fortunately, Apple machines are fairly tough, and might survive a short fall with only cosmetic damage. If it runs fine after such an event, don’t worry about it–it’s likely not the cause of any future problem. At the same time, let the nice Genius know about it if they ask, the circumstances, and its performance afterwards–if unexplained cosmetic damage gets noticed, it might be attributed to you.
Look, it really doesn’t take a genius–tee hee–to figure out when a problem was caused by a user or by the machine itself. I’ve seen more than one cracked LCD screen, split iPod case, and data port stuffed with bubble gum handed to me with the phrase “it just broke.” No, it didn’t, and it makes me less charitable when you lie to me. This comes into play when…

4. Geniuses have some limited degree of discretion about repairs and warranties.

So act like someone they want to help.

5. Understand Apple culture.

Apple is a secretive company. Moreover, they’re a company that rarely admits mistakes, and most importantly of all, they’re a company that keeps very tight control over their employees communications. If you come in with a problem, don’t try to snoop, or get anyone to admit to manufacturing problems, upcoming products, Steve Jobs’s health, or whether the walls of the back room are glossy white or brushed metal. Chances are, they don’t know; even if they do, they can’t comment on it.

I noticed that on the sales floor, snoops mostly want to know “our thoughts” on what’s coming up. When it comes to repairs, they want to know who else has had their problem, and when Apple will admit to a manufacturing flaw. The answer to both is the same: I sure don’t know. Pushing the issue is impolite, and even rude depending on the attitude.

6. Please don’t have your hand out for freebies.

It’s a shame that something very dear to you has stopped working the way it should. That doesn’t mean the Genius is going to apologize profusely and hand you a brand new computer for your troubles.

Personally, I would prefer to get my own equipment back, rather than a replacement–replacements usually mean setup time, restoration, customization, and getting to know a new machine all over again. Of course, I anthropomorphize a bit (computers have quirks that sometimes manifest like personality traits), but I know the feel–and limits–of all my computers. My Pro’s optical drive sometimes vibrates; my Air’s fans ramp up to 11 when I run lots of Firefox tabs.

7. Geniuses are friendly folk.

Look, most Geniuses that I’ve known like people enormously–at the Bar, they have a bit of an opportunity to get to know you while working out your problem. Most of them legitimately want the best outcome for you and your hardware, and generally want the experience to be pleasant. Everyone has off moments, and often times finding out something’s broken doesn’t put you in the best frame of mind, but generally, visits to the Bar can be a lot of fun. Everyone just wants to be happy, after all.

8. Understand the limits of Applecare.

Applecare is a good deal much of the time–without it, I would never have gotten my LCD screen replaced, or consultation on my Pro’s tendency to eat batteries about every two months (I had four in two years). It’s typically the first thing I recommend anyone get with their new Mac. Understand, though, that it doesn’t cover accidental damage at all (as seen in my experience above), and it is voided if you do something not sanctioned by Apple–cracking open cases, jailbreaking your iPhone, messing with firmware in a significant way, etc. There are ways to tell if this has been done (especially on laptops–there are an awful lot of screws that need to go back to their original places), so if you plan to service your own machine (up to you, but not always cheap), jailbreak or unlock your phone, or hack away at your iPod, skip the Applecare and forego the Bar.

9. Be ready to defend your position.

The hotspots on my LCD screen were caused by pressure from the metal back of the screen pushing on the glass panel. Mine was given the green light for in-house repair; a friend of mine with an identical problem was told it was considered user damage, and would cost $1300. How did I get mine resolved?

Research can help you a bit–if enough people can document an identical problem with identical circumstances, then at least you know you’re in the right, and can further support your position. However, research gleaned from forums is not enough in this situation, so it’s now on you to provide proof you haven’t abused your computer.

Here’s where notes and documentation come in handy, as well as repeat trips. My laptop sat on my desk at work for six months–no travel, no stacking, nothing–and the spots got worse. I made a note of it, took pictures over time, etc. I explained everything rationally, clearly, and with specifics–when certain lights came in, when the screen started to show grids, etc. I could prove my point that this was not from misuse or abuse (unfortunately, liquid is liquid…). If you know what you’re talking about, and you’re pleasant about it, they can do you some big favors.

In case you’re new to my writing and tendency to play with lots of web toys, I’ve had a lot of blogs. My current favorite is my Tumblr account, which essentially serves as my frontal lobe’s digital junk drawer. I’ll probably continue to update Uphill Both Ways, but I feel like I need a place to really compose and develop a writing style.

Hopefully, this blog is that place (in addition to also serving as my portfolio). So what will I write about? Has anyone ever successfully answered that question? Typically, I have fairly limited interests, but here I hope to post pieces on my professional interests: tech and libraries.

At least, that’s the hope. Whether or not it comes to fruition is another story.

The longer version might be that I just have too much free time on my hands, if I intend to follow through with my plan to upload HTML versions of my portfolio of academic work, and post personal updates, and potentially work towards greater creative goals (which I haven’t yet defined even to myself).