State of XR 2020 – My Conclusions
After my participation of the State of XR 2019 2020 project, I
have come to the following three conclusions. The overall results
edited by iLRN will replace what was known as the New Media Consortium
(NMC) Report for 2020, albeit for XR topics (Virtual Reality, Augmented
Reality, Mixed Reality, Virtual Worlds) only. The following are the
schisms present within XR that most fascinate me.
Accessibility versus Immersion
Again
and again, when my fellow researchers and I examined sources, papers,
and examples of XR being used in research and education, we found gaps
in either of these concepts. It is as if you can have one but not the
other.
If a technology is accessible, it is not fully immersive.
If a technology is amazingly immersive, it is not accessible to some population.
This
tension spreads far beyond a physical campus or location as well. If a
university is investing in maker spaces, 3D printing, or immersive
headsets (all items that are by definition limited to a certain space
and time), the tradeoff is that only a few users can partake of an
experience at any given time. This opens up the conundrum of do you
invest heavily in spaces where only a few students benefit? To increase
accessibility, do you design immersive rooms instead of VR headsets?
Then, if you have a room, do you put more than one person in it?
To be clear, I feel that this conundrum can be overcome. We’re just not there yet. I feel that the solution lies in the fact that we (as in humanity) will be able to adapt to not fully immersive experiences and we’ll call that good enough.
The Most Effective XR has the Highest Stakes
Over
and over, as I stack up the pile of research studies that show that XR
is an effective conduit of education, the majority of studies right now
are from the emergency services: medical, military, police, and fire.
Why is that?
Putting this conundrum in another light, we know that immersive experiences heretofore have used fear as their greatest emotional coinage
(2018, Bailenson). For example, put a learner into a training situation
where they have to find and rescue a person from a burning building and
then begin CPR, you will find that XR gives very impressive learning outcomes.
So
why was the high stakes emotion of fear the same effective coinage in
both situations? Was that destined to be XR’s first proven success?
I don’t have a problem with this. Don’t misinterpret me.
But
I wonder what it is about ‘high stakes’ and fear that made this emotion
the first to show it works via the research in XR? Bring humans into an
experience where it feels scary, but make sure they remember that the
situation isn’t real. The result becomes high entertainment value (i.e.
Grand Theft Auto). My point is that there are many other emotions that
we could pick for XR to ellicit/play on.
We could have selected love as our emotion. What about wonder? Awe? Compassion?
I’m not saying that there are not XR applications out there that don’t pull upon the non-fear emotions; there are. But why did fear get to the front of the “effective” line?
The Role of Justice is Coming to XR
If you followed my exploration of the History of XR series, you know that I was engaging in an exercise of future prediction. As such, I sensed two choices:
- All possibilities are possible.
- Patterns predict what will happen.
After
my study, I decided, as a designer, that choice #2 is the better bet.
That is, if I could find a foundation upon which a feature, design, or
product was built and *that* foundation was successful, then I would bet
that the future feature would be successful.
Here is a simple example:
At this point, books
are one of humanity’s greatest design successes. Many users want to
read (there is market desire) and are more successful after reading
(effectiveness is high). Books are predictable; they contain many
patterns that are widely understood: title, table of contents, letters
form words, words form sentences, sentences form paragraphs, paragraphs
are contained arguments, books proceed through an argument from
beginning to an end (in different directions depending on language).
An
example conclusion, therefore, is that future XR technologies *must*
contain some element of text to be successful. Purely icon-based
communication does not feel successful.
But back to XR as an entire picture. Justice was built into the very first concepts of human’s imaginings of alternate realities.
(Hello Plato!) I believe justice is still there, but it is very buried.
I look for justice to show up more prominently in the future. There are
already calls for XR to be a harassment-free or a prejudice free zone.
I’ll be spending 2020 contemplating this and looking for examples of justice in XR applications.
I seek to find justice in:
AR
– I look forward to the day when disciplines described today as ‘for
those who have vision’ to be opened to all. For example, in science we
know it is very hard to envision electron orbitals as
‘statistically-likely places to find electrons.’ AR will be able to add
that sight to anyone studying the Periodic Table. Just the same for
envisioning the flow of electrons in electricity.
VR
– Lucas Rizotto’s recently released Oculus game “Where Thoughts Go”
introduces a much more subtle version of empathy, not a bang you over
the head version.
VW – Some quiet and yet profound results are coming from the social application of virtual platforms. Virtual Ability
has been doing spectacular work for years on all kinds of physical and
mental ability fronts. I look for this to open up as an increasingly
socially acceptable form of support and thus, justice.
It’s almost a new decade! I can’t wait to see what the future does hold. See you there.
#StateOfXR
#Research #Conclusions #AccessibilityInXR #ImmersionInXR #XR #AR #VR
#VW #Fear #HighStakes #Effective #Compassion #Awe #SocialSupport
#Justice #EmergencyServices
This article originally appeared on LinkedIn on December 23, 2019. Updated font and images on February 23, 2026.