The following is my term paper for VM503 – Aesthetics and History of New Media (aka, Hub2). This paper is also available as a PDF download.
—

Abstract

Virtual worlds provide architects and engineers with design tools for collaboration across distant locations. These developments present opportunities for non-traditional designers, such as liberal arts students and faculty, to collaborate on the design of spaces in ways not possible in the real world. Recent studies report evidence that online environments ground collaboration by re-introducing the concept of place back into virtual spaces. Other studies have attempted to prove that networked design is more than simply a technical exercise; it is a social activity. As a result, the nature of both design and design studies is shifting to more nuanced and reflective practices. Researchers and practitioners have embraced this transition to explore the endless possibilities that virtual worlds provide to collaborative design projects.

This paper builds on these and other studies to provide a comparative framework for evaluating a recent collaborative design project, called Hub2, at Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts. In it, the author will (1) explore concepts relevant to design studies and the influence of networked technology on design practices, and (2) apply these lessons to a non-traditional collaborative design project using the virtual world Second Life. The author concludes with recommendations for future networked-design projects in higher education with a particular focus on the group formation process.

Collaborative Design

Architects and structural engineers have traditionally worked in teams to solve problems. They design models for others to construct physical objects, such as cars, airplanes, etc. Similarly, software and systems engineers have focused their group work on virtual/information objects. Collaborative design often involves large groups, sometimes up to thousands of individuals. But what are the distinguishing characteristics of collaborative design?

Collaborative design is performed by multiple participants (representing individuals, teams or even entire organizations), each potentially capable of proposing values for design issues and/or evaluating these choices from their own particular perspective (e.g. manufacturability). (Klein, et al, 2002)

Authors have commented on the often difficult and counter-productive processes present within these group initiatives (Klein, et al, 2002). Past studies have sought to better understand the nature of individual and group dynamics present in these collaborative environments (Petal, Cruz, and Holtham, 1997). Some researchers have developed models to help visualize, establish and improve team dynamics (Maher, et al, 2000). Others argue that collaborative design should be approached from a social-psychology perspective, because the “process of sense making” involved in such group processes should be considered in evaluating the design of physical environments (Larsson, 2003).

Networked Collaborative Design

Advancements in broadband technology and virtual software have created new opportunities for architects and engineers to collaborate across distant places. Recent studies have attempted to determine the value that new technologies present within networked environments with the purpose of making global design teams more effective (Patel, et al 1997). More recently, researchers have sought to document the role of place within virtual design.

Object representations of a person include characteristics such as a verbal description, messages about their movements in the place, and links to web pages and publications help establish their identity and personality. The visual presence of the avatars brings a new dimension in communication in virtual places. (Maher and Simoff, 2005)

Researchers have made recommendations to software developers that better reflect the practice of distributed design teams (Patel, et al 1997). These and other studies have shown that both the tools and practice of design are rapidly evolving. This opening presents opportunities for non-traditional designers to explore the tools and group dynamics involved in non-traditional collaborative design.

Collaborative Design Tools

Architects and designers have used CAD (computer-aided design) tools for over 50 years. In the 1960s, Ivan Sutherland at MIT created the SKETCHPAD software widely known as among the first CAD tools (Bozdoc, 2007).

CAD is mainly used for detailed engineering of 3D models and/or 2D drawings of physical components, but it is also used throughout the engineering process from conceptual design and layout of products, through strength and dynamic analysis of assemblies to definition of manufacturing methods of components. (Wikipedia, 2007)

Over the years, advancements in microprocesssing, desktop computing and the World Wide Web transformed single-user domains into global design hubs. In the late 1990s, researchers studied how electronic, or interactive, whiteboards coupled with video conferencing systems impacted the work of distributed design teams. They learned that these new technologies changed expectations for design software (Maher, Cicognani and Simoff, 1997). Since the late 1990s, many networked design tools have appeared. All of them introduce new layers of social interaction into the previously single user-centric approach of CAD tools. CALVIN (Collaborative Architectural Layout Via Immersive Navigation) is one effort to bring architectural design into computer-mediated spaces.

CALVIN, an immersive multimedia approach to applying virtual reality in architectural design and collaborative visualization emphasizing heterogeneous perspectives. These perspectives, including multiple mental models as well as multiple visual viewpoints, allow virtual reality to be applied in the earlier, more creative, phases of design, rather than just as a walk-through of the finished space. CALVIN’s interface employs visual, gestural, and vocal input to give the user greater control over the virtual environment. (Leigh, Johnson, DeFanti, 1996)

Researchers at the Universities of Leeds and Chicago used CALVIN in the late 1990s to introduce the immersive qualities of virtual reality into the architectural design process. The addition of walkthroughs allowed designers to experience the design of physical places through virtual space. In addition, researchers found that the software’s multi-perspective visual capabilities offered the following perspectives to its users:

• Multiple camera parameters.
• Multiple specific information filters.
• Multiple collaborators offering their opinions.
• Experimenting with multiple designs.
• Design ideas maturing over time.

As a result, CALVIN proved to be an effective tool in allowing people to actively participate in the design of spaces (Leigh, Johnson, DeFanti, 1996).

Another collaborative design tool explored by designers is the Active Worlds virtual reality platform for Windows and Linux. In the late 1990s, Active Worlds became popular by allowing its users to build their own environments and communicate with others using their avatars. In 2004, researchers at the University of Sydney conducted a study to understand how Active Worlds, as a tool, facilitates communication and design among multidisciplinary teams (Maher, et al). Their interest in studying in this platform was based on how it facilitated

communication and collaboration by providing mechanisms for shared context, awareness of others, visual and textual communication, immersive manipulation of constructed artefacts, and a fostering of community design. (Maher, et al, 2004)

The researchers constructed a prototype model based on Active Worlds that enabled architects and engineers to collaborate through “inserting conceptual design ideas to each other” (Maher, et al, 2004). This prototype also introduced web audio, video, and design sketchpad functionality to create a more robust model for virtual collaboration across disciplines.

Collaborative Design Group Characteristics

As mentioned above, designers approach projects with the purpose of solving problems. Design studies support methodologies to achieve these ends. Recently, a more reflective approach has been suggested (Glock, 2003 ; Maher, et al, 2005) as an alternative theoretical framework upon which to understand the nuanced characteristics of design practice in collaborative virtual environments. This approach is particularly useful in making sense of building processes – particularly those of non-traditional designers – within virtual worlds.

The reconstructive research aims to describe and to ‘characterize’ the (system of) frameworks and practices which serve as the background for interpretations in particular design processes. (Glock, 2003)

This methodology uses ethnographic data gathered from audio and video recording devices and chat technologies present in virtual environments. The combination of tools offers rich contextual evidence regarding specific experiences unique to both individual and group designers. Researchers from the University of Sydney applied this method to compare design practices across 2D and 3D spaces. They studied one group of designers that communicated only through web conferencing software, and interactive whiteboards, and another that used an extended application from within Active Worlds. The researchers found that the designers’ behavior was quite different in each space.

Architects developed abstract concepts, analyzed synthesized and evaluated them when they were involved in remote sketching via Net Meeting shared whiteboard. The same architects focused on synthesis of the objects and the making of the design, when they were involved in 3D modeling via the extended virtual world. (Maher, et al, 2005)

In other words, researchers found that designers using virtual environments carried out specific building tasks while 2D participants worked on a more conceptual level.

Second Life as a Collaborative Design Tool

A recent development in virtual world technology can be seen in the example of Second Life. SL is Multi-User Virtual Environment developed by Linden Research Inc. and first launched in 2003. SL is unlike other virtual world platforms (e.g., EverQuest or World of Warcraft) in that it is not a game. Users, or “residents,” of SL create avatars of themselves which they use to walk, fly, and talk with other avatars through chat (text- and audio-based) technologies. While these qualities reflect those found in games, SL is different in that there are no pre-determined goals other than what avatars create for themselves. People use their avatars to create, buy and sell land and other objects through the “in-world” currency, Linden Dollars. These features combined present new opportunities for students, teachers and other professionals to explore possibilities for collaborative multidisciplinary design and construction (van Nederveen, 2007).

Faculty at Delft University of Technology, Netherlands experimented with Second Life as a tool for collaborative design in education (van Nederveen, 2007). Recognizing the technology’s immersive attributes educators there believe that SL provides their students with useful opportunities to build together and experience the “appearance of architectural compositions” (van Nederveen, 2007). Australia’s Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology purchased land in SL for their students to use in designing and collaborating with others around the world (Thenews.au.com, 2007). Students and faculty at the University of Texas have used SL to explore concepts of sustainability among Austin’s local population (The Arch, 2007). These educational initiatives have made it possible to apply design concepts in ways not possible in the real world. “The playful nature of Second Life also assists participants in imagining the possibilities of social spaces in ways that wouldn’t be possible through traditional modes of representation” (Gordon and Koo, 2007). As a result, Second Life creates opportunities to extend the realm of architectural education to other initiatives in the liberal arts.

Studio Wikitecture uses Second Life to merge concepts from the open source movement with traditional architecture and design. This open model allows contributors to submit their ideas and collaborate with others for the purpose of using “collective intelligence in designing architecture” (Studio Wikitecture, 2007).

The Studio Wikitecture group has been using these experiments to work out the manner by which a group of geographical disperse individuals can come together to share ideas, edit the contributions of others, and to vote on the success or failure of proposed design iterations. (Studio Wikitecture, 2007)

Structural, geotechnical, and mechanical engineers collaborate with urban and landscape architects and others to test virtual designs. In October 2007, Studio Wikitecture kicked off an international challenge “to develop solutions for building sustainable, multi-purpose, low-cost technology facilities for those who need them most” (The Arch, 2007). Efforts like these reveal the endless possibilities that virtual worlds provide to students and educators interested in using technology for socially conscious and civic-minded work.

Hub2: Collaboration

In 2007, students at Emerson College and residents of Boston, Massachusetts participated in a pilot project, called Hub2, co-sponsored by the City of Boston, the Boston Redevelopment Authority and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. The purpose is to have residents “take control and ownership of their neighborhoods,” using digital environments to imagine and articulate shared visions (Hub2, 2007). In this semester-long course divided into two sections, day and night class students at Emerson College formed into groups based on themes of interest, including “Play,” “Expression,” and “Collaboration.” Day students’ goals focused on using Second Life to re-design – or more accurately to re-imagine – the space of Boston City Hall Plaza, the home of the municipal Government of Boston. The methodology used for the project is summarized by the acronym, IDEA:

• Imagine: participants explore spaces in order to re-imagine them.
• Design: participants draft and execute a single design of a Second Life space.
• Engage: participants occupy the virtual space, invite others to use it, and experiment with its capacity to encourage social activity.
• Activate: participants realize the resonance between their newly-built SL spaces and their chosen RL spaces. This phase of the process aims to redirect the virtual social space back to the real spaces of everyday life. (Hub2, 2007)

The author participated as a student in the daytime class. In the next section, I will describe our group project and present an overview of our vision, method and implementation of our collaborative design project.

Imagine. In the first stage of our project, our group visited the physical location of City Hall Plaza individually. We took notes about how the space was used, including how visitors walked through it. We used these notes to reflect on how the physical space could be improved to better engage residents of Boston. During this stage, our group talked about various real world applications of our virtual design. We decided that juried art installations would be an effective way to add functionality to the space and to encourage social interaction. We envisioned a space where well-known artists, or even up and coming artists, could submit their artwork and residents of Boston would vote for their favorites. We discussed a real-life application of the space where representatives from various community organizations would participate, as jury members, to moderate the public voting process. The winning installation would be chosen on a seasonal, or some other rotational, basis to be displayed in a designated space within City Hall Plaza. The process of voting on future art installations also reflects the democratic process of local government and other forms of civic engagement.

Design. During this stage our group collaborated on the design of the virtual space. We designated one area as juried space and the other to feature the winning art piece. After deciding on the layout our individual work focused on creating objects and building out the space. One member of our group constructed paths to encourage avatars to “walk through” the space, directing them to certain areas. Other group members built benches, trees, flowers, and grass. Another member of our group constructed a virtual Government Center T Stop that later served as way to teleport to and from our space. For our group, the Design stage was a mix of collaboration and individual design. We used physical meetings to discuss higher-level design goals and virtual meetings to carry out the actual building of our initial design (see below). In this way, our process was similar to results found from the University of Sydney study mentioned above (Maher, et al, 2005).

Several class sessions were designated for students to provide feedback to each other on our group projects. During this time, we received many helpful comments that included re-arranging our juried space (above left) to better reflect how avatars “move” around the space. Previously, avatars had to fly around each of the floating screens. This was a bit awkward. In response, we separated the juried space into three separate “walls.” The result was an outdoor gallery-like space where avatars could vote on their favorite design. We placed benches in front of this area to invite avatars to sit and view the potential future art installations. We hoped this new bench arrangement would create more effective opportunities for social interaction. Finally, we set up a “drop box” during this stage where avatars could submit their work for future display in the juried space.

Engage. During the Engage stage, our class invited non-members to visit our space. This process was helpful in that we received feedback from those who hadn’t previously seen our design. As a result, we learned a number of useful things. Some avatars did not know what to do when they first arrived. We had created a “Start Here” sign that included a script that gave visitors a welcome card upon arrival. The card describes the space in greater detail, including the voting procedure. Through the Engage process we learned that the sign was too high for most avatars to see, and as a result, many did not start there. In response, we lowered the sign and moved it to the center of our collaboration space.

After explaining the purpose of the space to one of our visitors (seen above), the avatar responded, “Thanks . . . I like the artwork already.” The juried, gallery space seemed to work much smoother since we broke up the triangle and created three separate viewing screens. I was pleased with this response from our visitors. Overall, while most avatars were unclear what to do when first arriving in the space — because they did not see the “Start here” sign — once they heard what its purpose was, our group received a lot of positive feedback.

Activate. In the lead up to the Activate stage, our group made final changes to our Collaboration space based on the recommendations above. Also during this stage, we produced a video that we used to describe our project and vision for our re-design (below) of Boston City Hall Plaza.

The video was shown during our December 13 event that brought both classes enrolled in Hub2 together with City officials. The purpose was to hand a virtual key to Boston Island in Second Life to the physical City of Boston. The event was also a celebration of our group work throughout the semester.

Project Summary: One Student’s View

Overall, my experience using Second Life as a collaborative design tool in the class was very positive. Our group project for Hub2 was an opportunity to develop more complex ideas about collaboration in real life using Second Life as a platform. Our project resonates with previous research on virtual design projects (Leigh, et al, 1996 ; Maher, et al, 2000) in that SL provided our group with the opportunity to experience the building process as it occurred. The immersive nature of SL was a powerful device in encouraging our group to participate in collaborative group design. In addition, SL provided a fairly low learning curve for our group’s participants. This allowed us to spend more time focusing on project goals and less time on the details of collaborative design and implementation.

One limitation of Second Life as a collaborative tool is the robust processing and high-bandwidth requirements needed to support the platform. As a result, not everyone in our group had access to SL outside the classroom. Much of our group building involved sitting together in the physical classroom, while simultaneously collaborating in our virtual space. In this case, SL was an obstacle to our work because it limited our group collaboration to face-to-face meetings. Universal group access to SL outside class might have created additional opportunities for idea sharing and design. Fortunately, we were able to overcome these barriers and complete our goals within the designated time frame.

Conclusion

Second Life is a useful tool for encouraging and supporting virtual collaborative design. With its fairly low learning curve, SL provides students in higher education with opportunities to re-imagine shared physical spaces and to collaborate on group projects. Future research using Second Life for virtual design in education might include a study of cross-institutional collaboration to investigate how SL facilitates geographically distant design teams. Because the Hub2 Collaboration group’s design and building experience was limited to simultaneous face-to-face and virtual participation in SL, our group had less experience with online-only use of the platform. As a result, our group was not able to explore the full-range of possibilities provided by SL.

==

Citation:

Rhinesmith, Colin. “Collaborative Design in a Virtual World: Using Second Life to Re-imagine Boston City Hall Plaza.” Colinrhinesmith.com. 17 Dec 2007. 18 Dec 2007. http://colinrhinesmith.com/2007/12/19/collaborative-design-in-a-virtual-world-
using-second-life-to-re-imagine-boston-city-hall-plaza/

References

Bozdoc, M. (2007). i-MB The History of CAD. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://mbinfo.mbdesign.net/CAD-History.htm.

Dekel, U. and Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Notation and representation in collaborative object-oriented design: an observational study. Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications. Proceedings of the 22nd annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming systems and applications, 261-280.

Gero, J., Maher, M.L., Bilda, Z., Merchant, D., Candy, L., and Namprempree, K. (2005). Studying collaborative design in high bandwidth virtual environments. Queensland University of Technology. Australia Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://www.construction-innovation.info/images/pdfs/Research_library/ResearchLibraryB/RefereedConferencePapers/Refereed_Conference_Paper_Studying_Collaborative_Design_in_High_Bandwidth_Virtual_Environments.pdf.

Glock, F. (2003). Design Tools and Framing Practices. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 12, 221–239.

Gordon, E. and Koo, G. (2007). Placeworlds: Using virtual worlds to foster civic engagement. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://hub2.org/08GordonKoo.doc.pdf.

Larsson, A. (2003). Making sense of collaboration: the challenge of thinking together in global design teams. Conference on Supporting Group Work. Proceedings of the 2003 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work 153-160.

Leigh, J, Johnson, A. E. Vasilakis, C. A., and DeFanti, T. A. (1996). Multi-perspective collaborative design in persistent networked virtual environments. University of Leeds, Electronic Visualization Laboratory. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.evl.uic.edu/spiff/calvin/calvin.vrais/index.html.

Maher, M.L., Cicognani, A., and Simoff, S. (1997). An experimental study of computer mediated collaborative design. International Journal of Design Computing. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://faculty.arch.usyd.edu.au/kcdc/journal/vol1/papers/maher/index.html.

Maher, M.L. and S. Simoff. (2000). Collaboratively designing within the design. Proceedings of Co-Designing 2000, 391-399.

Maher, M.L., Rosenman, M., Ding, L., Smith, G., Marchant, D., and Dong, A. (2004). Supporting collaboration and multiple views of building models in virtual worlds. CRC Construction Innovation – Clients Driving Innovation Conference. Retrieved November 25, 2007, from http://www.construction-innovation.info/images/pdfs/conference_cd_2004/conference/Papers/Refereed%20Papers/021%20Maher.pdf.

Maher, M.L., Bilda, Z. and Marchant, D. (2005). Comparing collaborative design behavior in remote sketching and 3d virtual worlds. University of Sydney. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://people.arch.usyd.edu.au/~mary/Pubs/2005pdf/HBiD2005_maher_bilda.pdf.

Patel, U., M. J. D’Cruz and C. Holtham. (1997). Collaborative design for virtual team collaboration: a case study of jostling on the web. Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems. Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques 289 – 300.

Second Life Insider. (2007). University project shines in architectural design. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://www.secondlifeinsider.com/2007/07/18/university-project-shines-in-architectural-design/.

Studio Wikitecture. (2007). Wikitecture 2.0: Designing the architecture of architectural design collaration. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://studiowikitecture.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/wikitecture-20-designing-the-architecture-of-architectural-design-collaboration/.

The Arch. (2007). Alley flats presentation machinima. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://archsl.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/alley-flats-initiative-video/.

The Arch. (2007). Wikitecture 3.0 experiment: 1st kick-off meeting. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://archsl.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/wikitecture-30-experiment-1st-kick-off-meeting/.

TheNews.com.au. (2007). Architecture 2.0: Whos on second? Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://thenews.com.au/index.php/2007/08/24/architecture-20-whos-on-second/.

Wikipedia. (2007). Computer-aided design. Retrieved December 16, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design.