Zachary Deocadiz is a designer for the VR video app Within, who has written a couple of blogposts about social VR for the Medium-hosted blog Virtual Reality Pop. In them, he attempts to develop a framework for how to evaluate and design new social applications in virtual reality.
Unfortunately, for some reason I cannot see any of the illustrations Zach attaches to these blogposts. (UPDATE: It turned out that this was a problem due to the Privacy Badger plug-in I have installed on my Chrome web browser. When I disabled Privacy Badger, I could see the images.) However, the person who originally shared this information with me on the RyanSchultz.com Discord server, Michael Zhang, also shared a couple of screen captures he took from the blog (thank you, Michael!).
In part one, Zach discusses the impact of existing VR social spaces on user behaviour, using as his examples the following six platforms:
- Facebook Spaces
- Mozilla Hubs
- OrbusVR (one of the first MMORPGs in VR, which I haven’t blogged about yet)
- Where Thoughts Go (a VR app where people record their memories anonymously, which I haven’t covered yet)
In part two, Zach discusses various spectrums of a framework based on recurring design decisions made in current social VR apps:
1. Guided to Self-Taught. Will you teach users how to use the controls? How in-depth will your onboarding be? How do you teach the user about appropriate behavior in these spaces?
2. Public to Private. Will there be large public spaces for users who are strangers to gather? Will users be constrained to only hosting private events with people they already know?
3. Prescribed to User-Generated. To what extent can users impact the way they look? To what extent can users change the way the environment looks? To what extent can users create custom interactions with other people or the space?
4, Anonymous to Identified. Do you allow users to go by a pseudonym or username, or do you require them to use their legal (or Facebook) name? Do you have a system to find out their legal information if something comes to light at a later point?
5. Reactive to Preemptive. Do users feel safe within the social space? What are the ways you can make them feel safer, both before and after an incident occurs?
6. Simple to Complex Interactions. How many different ways can users communicate? How can they interact with each other?
7. Persistent to Temporary. Are there social things for users to do even if no one else is online at the same time? Does the environment remember the last state it was in, or does it reset to its original state once all users leave?
8. Shareable to Real-Time. How easy is it to create artifacts to document the space and the people within the space? How do people tell others about what they’ve been doing? Can they share the experience over a wide range of media?
He talks about each spectrum in some detail, including links to related reading. And he goes so far as to “map” out 6 social VR apps using his framework:
Zach Deocadiz’s work is among the earliest attempts to categorize and classify aspects of social virtual reality, along with the research work of Dr. Katherine Isbister, Dr. Joshua McVeigh-Schultz, and Anya Kolesnichenko at the University of California, Santa Cruz. This is an important contribution to social VR research, and Zach’s work will help inform future academic investigation in this rapidly evolving field.
Thanks to Michael Zhang for the tip, and for sharing his pictures!