Category: XR

Designing XR into Higher Education

With the dramatic shift to online learning with the arrival of the
COVID-19 pandemic, faculty, staff, and students within higher education
worldwide have made the sudden but necessary initial steps to
incorporate technology into the learning environment in ways never
imagined. However, forward-thinking administrators are wondering, “what
comes next?” Immersive learning and XR answer this call.

Created with care in Canva.

Sources:

Definitions come from my own writing here:

Ziker C., Truman B., Dodds H. (2021) Cross Reality (XR): Challenges and
Opportunities Across the Spectrum. In: Ryoo J., Winkelmann K. (eds)
Innovative Learning Environments in STEM Higher Education.
SpringerBriefs in Statistics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58948-6_4

Dodds, H. (2021). Immersive Learning Environments: Designing XR into
Higher Education. In J. E. Stefaniak, S. Conklin, B. Oyarzun, &
R. M. Reese (Eds.), A Practitioner’s Guide to Instructional Design in
Higher Education. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/id_highered/immersive_learning_e

Slide 6:

Mordor Intelligence. (2021). Extended Reality (XR) Market –
Growth, Trends, COVID-19 Impact, and Forecasts (2021 – 2026) https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/extended-reality-xr-market

Slide 8 does not have one source but over 20 years research (including
my dissertation study) with technology-facilitated immersive learning
has yet to show a significant improvement other any other learning
media. This aligns with this important article in the history of
instructional design: Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence
learning. Educational technology research and development, 42(2), 21-29.

Slides 9, 10, 11 “XR reduces Time, Money, Danger” (similarly expressed
in my dissertation). There are parallel comments made by Jeremy
Bailenson documented here as his “DICE” advice. https://stanfordvr.com/video/2019/transformative-experiences-vr-for-good/
It should be noted that the DICE advice are the 4 occasions for which
to NOT use VR (against) where my 3 are 3 occasions TO use VR (for).

The combination of 4 different models is my own published creation:
ADDIE (traditional ID model), Design Thinking (from UX), 3DLED (from
Karl Kapp), and narrative plot (loosely credited to Pixar). They are
displayed here to show the remarkable similarity of steps/pathway across
each model, thus supporting the validity of the proposed path.

November 18, 2021
Beware the VR Straw Man
Merriam-Webster’s first definition of straw man is a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted. Said another way, a straw man is a type of logical fallacy where the argument is a false or fake version of the opposing argument that can then be easily broken down. The straw man is meant to imply flimsy or weak. Think of how easy it is to tear apart a form stuffed with straw compared to attacking a real person.

When I was working on articles about poor virtual reality (VR) and learning research, I found 3 instances of myths surrounding VR learning & training:
In each case, the myths were communicated by companies selling something in VR.

That’s an AMAZING coincidence, yo.

Too coincidental.

Yeah, it’s not a coincidence.

This is classic, slick, ‘don’t fall for the snake oil,’ from the snake oil salesman.

Additionally, I’ll add my own opinion here: I’ve never heard these statements circulated about VR. These are three examples below with seven, five, and five VR straw man arguments, respectively.

AIXR: 7 Myths and Misconceptions About VR Training
1. VR Training Is Expensive, Especially At Scale
2. VR Training Requires A Lot Of Space
3. VR Training is Distracting and Counterproductive
4. VR Training is Unhygienic
5. VR Training Sessions Are Very Long
6. All VR Training Makes Users Sick
7. VR Training Isn’t Here To Stay
Learning Solutions Magazine: Debunking – Top 5 Common Myths of VR In Education

I honestly forgot name of company that put out this infographic, so I can’t give you the link.
1. It requires heavy investment
2. You must have headsets
3. You cannot build VR yourself
4. VR cannot compliment existing learning
5. You cannot track your learners
Learning Solutions Magazine: Debunking 5 Myths: VR-Based Training Effective At Any Age
1. VR-based training appeals only to younger workers.
2. VR is only useful for entertainment, not serious training
3. You need a large space for people to take VR-based training
4. VR training is prohibitively expensive
5. Learners will feel isolated in a VR headset
All of these statements above are VR straw man arguments. They are propped up only for the article to tear them down. However, here is a myth that I do hear all of the time: VR will revolutionize education.

And here’s my response:

Virtual Reality (VR) learning is no different than any other form of learning.

Come at me, bro.

Remember that I’m for VR in education. It’s just that VR is not a panacea. It will be one more tool in our toolbox of media to use for learning. It will EXCEL in areas where it:
- Saves time
- Saves money
- Reduces danger
This is the Way.

#VRMyth #VR #VirtualReality #Debunking #LearningMyths #VRForLearning #VREducation #VRIsNoDifferentThanAnyOtherFormOfLearning

This article originally posted to LinkedIn on August 27, 2021. Updated with images as of February 18, 2026 because I don’t know, Google eats old images maybe.
November 11, 2021
I taught one of Earth’s first courses with the Oculus Quest 2.
Oculus Quest 2 VR headset, Photo by Remy Gieling on Unsplash
Here’s how that went.

First, I can’t provide a reference that this course, Introduction to Virtual Reality out of the Unity College XR Innovation Lab, was the first, but given:
1. The timing: The Oculus Quest 2 was introduced on September 16 and shipped out on October 13, 2020.
  The Oculus Quest 2 is an upgrade of the original Oculus Quest. I used
  the original Quest during course development and had access to a Quest 2
  during the actual course run. As course development progressed, I did
  not know definitively that the Quest 2 would be the selected headset
  until late in the process.
2. The opportunity:
  College semesters tend to most often be trimesters (3 per year). The
  Quest 2 launched mid-autumn semester. The first opportunity to start a
  course, then, would be winter/spring semester starting January 2021. My
  5-week course squeaked in there between February 22 and March 28, 2021. Therefore, it is fair to say this course was one of the first because there really wasn’t much opportunity for other courses to launch and run before this one.
I
do not write about the learners in any identifiable way. I write this
article from the perspective of the designer and instructor and I write
it for other potential virtual reality (VR) headset-using instructors.

I’m going to call the VR experiences (games) apps since that term is current and understandable.

First,
I will explain the course design and decisions. Next, I will name the
apps used. Finally, I’ll explain the use of a device management (DM)
system.

Course Design

In
the design and development of this course, I played the role of the
Subject Matter Expert (SME) and instructor introducing first and second
year college learners to virtual reality. Interestingly, I am an
Instructional Designer by degree and interest, so this was a bit meta
for me; designing a course on design. However, I was assigned a Senior
Instructional Designer and they had a process, timeline, and confidence
in Canvas. We got along fabulously and we finished ~80 hours of development on time.

We did a backwards by design
approach (don’t know what that is? Visit my honored friend Dr. Luke
Hobson’s Instruction Design Institute course) to building these pieces:
1. Designed the final project.
2. Cut the project into chunks with an assignment due each week.
3. Wrote the weekly lessons.
4. Finalized the assignments and discussion prompts.
5. Completed learning resources (intro videos, handouts, examples).
I
also worked with the person responsible for advocating for this new
course to the college. They oversaw the place of this course within the
college’s mission and programs. We worked on selecting the apps that
would be preloaded on the headsets. Also, they played the role of
teacher assistant in the course for tech support questions and they ran
the entire DM process.

We started gathering ideas of which apps we
would include. Since we didn’t know which headset (or even if we would
have a headset requirement) we started with the ‘free’, ‘easy-to-access’
VR apps first. I came in with a good background in 2D VR choices and
they had a few ideas from 3D VR choices. Both of us made sure to include
a wide range of apps as we wanted the course to appeal to many
different college majors. We scoped out apps ranging in feel (not too
many first person shooters) and content (apps that were related to fun
or work).

Why teach VR design?

Why is there value in teaching design?

It’s
the first step in an efficient and focused effort at getting to a goal.
It is rare that organizations and individuals spend time on design (aka mission or purpose). People want to rush past it with the hand wave approach and say “yes, yes, I already know I want to include VR, let’s get down to exactly this VR! Let’s start!”

The
point of a good design foundation is that it is like the rudder on a
ship or the hypothesis to a scientific experiment; it guides you.

A
good design will provide guidance later when decisions arise. If you
are clear on your purpose, then making later decisions becomes easier
because you just evaluate which choice leads you along the path towards
your mission or purpose.

For example, I worked on a VR project
that had accessibility and “hold up to 1,000 simultaneous avatars” as
its top design specifications. Those elements were key. So as I
evaluated VR choices, we found VR choices that were:
- Gamified
- Popular
- Supported by great tech
- Creative
- Cheap
- Gender-neutral
But
notice…none of these choices were the design elements we valued in the
project. So these would have been the wrong choices; possibly fun
choices, but wrong and regrettable. By staying focused on our mission,
we maximized the chance of meeting our user experience expectations.

So teaching design for the purpose of valuing design ends up creating better products with more user satisfaction and better prices. Win-win.

But what to teach in design?

One of the first problems to pop up for me was content overload. These are some initial topics considered:
- Objective/Purpose — what does the experience claim to do/what does it really do
- Accessibility — tech/platform, modification ability, sounds, text, screen
- User Control/Avatar Creation — privacy/controls/independence
- Presence/Immersion — feeling of being there? Feeling of being inside the avatar?
- Deep Play/Flow — does the experience fully engage the user?
- Narrative — Does the experience appear to bring the user along?
- Tech factors — platform/latency/updates
- Navigation/Menus — 1st 30 seconds, how to exit, how to move
- Manipulation/Change — how does the user impact the experience
- Motivation/Gamification — why would a user use this past 30 seconds?
- Social sharing — how do users use this together?
Each one of those topics could be a whole course.

The
next problem that we were running into was selecting which apps to
incorporate and keep the costs down. We aimed for less than $50 of apps
per learner.

We also had to keep one eye on accessibility. Because
the learners were going to get a headset shipped to them, the college
sent early strong advice that the learners were opting in to this experience, it was not being done to them.
We constantly kept in mind the concern that a learner might have a bad
case of vertigo and be unable to don the headset after Week 1.

The
solution of what to cover in the course versus what apps to pick (and
how to plan for emergencies)was my favorite part of the course design.

You can view the design in the Course design: Introduction to virtual reality, Spring 2021 diagram below. Time progresses from the bottom up each week.

Copyright Heather Dodds 2021. All rights retained.

You should spy:

Bottom Row: The Design Thinking Model :
Empathize, Design, Ideate, Prototype, and Evaluation— the week by week
design of the course followed these steps (5 steps in 5 weeks)

Second Row: The Pixar Narrative Plot model (simplified): Introduction, Set the Scene, Dilemma, Crisis, Change, and Resolution

Third Row: The Course Final Project cut into chunks

Fourth Row: The Four VR Design Elements that we decided to focus on — Function, Narrative Plot, Immersion, and Interface.

Fifth Row: The Apps selected to align with a Design Element.

As such, students worked through a design plan while learning about design planning. The apps worked independently of the course, then. It is easier to think of it in two main layers:
1. The
  project — all parts of the assignments lead up to the completion of a
  3–minute video mock of the planned VR experience (Make an “ad”, Persona
  and Plot, Ideate, Storyboard, Video).
2. The apps — all of the experiences were tested for appropriateness towards a specific design element.
The
in-between layers are all commonly recognized design elements. They
become the grease that slips the main layers past each other.

Does one app fail or go offline?

No worries, slip in another one that addresses the same design element.

Does a learner not finish their Week 2 assignment on time?

No worries, the course is modular, they can proceed to the Week 3 apps while they catch up on the project.

Aren’t these apps just for fun?

No,
I picked specific apps for specific design elements and prompted the
learners to evaluate that element and discuss it within the course. Just
saying an app was “fun” was asking to fail the course discussion.

By
using these layers, any problems with app cost, procurement, running of
the app, or learner problems would not stop the entire success of the
course.

To explain the diagram, I’ll give one example from Week 1.

We
set up the course as a design cycle. Learners were going to make
portfolios describing a future VR experience. The first step they needed
to take was to empathize with their future VR app users.

Before they defined their users, they had to first be a user.

So, after safely unboxing and setting up their Oculus Quest 2, it was time for headset on and into some VR!

They
were asked to do three of these apps (below), talking out loud to
themselves throughout the experience and then reporting back in a
discussion prompt. Every observation is valid. They were tasked with
evaluating function; how well did the app actually utilize the virtual
reality medium? Could the experience have been done any other way
equally as well? What stood out as amazing? (There were many more
prompts to help them understand how to evaluate the VR design element of
function.)
One
of the items that learners could have noted is that it is not easy to
go to Antarctica. It is expensive and dangerous. Once there, learners
may never have kayaked or used an expensive camera. It is unlikely
they’ve ice-climbed. All of these are affordances that
virtual reality gives that no other current experience can replicate.
The closest is a 360 degree video, but those often come with little
interaction, you can’t actually paddle your kayak, or pick up a camera
and take photos. Therefore, the function of this VR app is high; it is
appropriately using VR to offer an experience.

Taken inside of National Geographic Antarctica VR Experience.

After
this, students had to create an advertisement of their own planned VR
experience. So they had to already have some of the feelings of their
users to get ready to market their idea to other users.

Additionally,
week by week, learners would get exposed to increasingly more
sophisticated evaluations so that they would be able to begin to
discriminate between what was good and what was bad about any VR
experience. The point was not to finish the course with learners that
love VR. The point was to make learners who can pick and choose and know
how to find VR that works for themselves and their ideas.

Which apps?

We selected and planned for ~4–5 VR apps per week.

Week 1 — Function
Week 2 — Narrative Plot
Week 3 — Immersion
Week 4 — Interface
- Dino
- Fingerspelling
- Beat Saber
- Forest HMD (a homegrown app about rabbit counting in the woods)
I want to strongly emphasize that we chose and included these apps for the design element per week.
So as fun as Beat Saber can be, learners must report on the design
elements of the interface (The menus, buttons, and music- what worked,
what did not?) and the feeling of immersion (Were they really on a
platform? Could they fall off? Was it light or dark? Do they have hands?
Do they have a stomach?

In
hindsight, I’d add more apps all through the five weeks because the
learners really loved this part of the course. In week one, they were
delighted. But by week five, they’d lost their zest and were just
looking to finish up. The device management process allows you to add
more apps to the headset or switch them out, remember that. Just because
a learner has an app in week one does not mean that you need to
maintain access.

Device management and privacy

The key problem that many instructors worry about is the fact that the Quest 2s, when released, required the use of a Facebook account.
I see this policy is changing and for the better. However, since we
were at the front of using the Quest 2s right after they were launched,
what were we going to do? Many instructors felt that learners using
their own Facebook accounts for classroom activities was a violation of
privacy in general. Personally, I will point out two thoughts:

1.
Many researchers and educators rightly point out that use of VR headsets
for children under the age of 13 is pretty much not allowed by any
Terms of Service of any of the major VR providers. Providing adequate
protection in VR is something that these companies cannot assure.
Therefore, bringing in school-age children into VR is something that
requires more research and safeguards.

2. As someone who has been
sexually harassed and bullied in real life situations, social media,
and virtual reality, personally identifiable VR accounts is a good
thing. Social media has played too fast and loose with privacy settings
and many perpetrators know that. I don’t mind thinking that I’m playing
against a specific real person on Beat Saber and vice versa. However,
I’m an adult capable of taking responsibility for my own decisions and I
also realize that as an adult, I am a consumer of my educational
choices. I can simply put the headset down and walk away. Personally,
I’ve only ever designed VR for adults. This policy was a protection
maneuver for the long game and I support it.

I know educators
hated this requirement and rose up on arms about it. But it was not a
battle that they were going to win immediately. They need to keep
pushing for educational use in other ways within these platforms.

The Unity College XR Innovation Lab
used a device management service and the learners rented their Quest
2s. The DM created the accounts and we monitored what was going on with
the headsets through the course (what apps were on the headset and last
used, battery charge, last time activated, etc.) In short, it worked for
this time period. In the future, it’s probably better advice for an
institution to buy their own headsets.

Teaching narrative plot in design

Final
thoughts about teaching narrative plot (introduction, set the scene,
dilemma, crisis, change, resolution) so centrally to VR design — do I
regret that decision?

No, but I’ve thought about it a lot. Given
the huge range of experiences possible in VR, was I correct in
emphasizing that my learners should be able to deduce out and design in a narrative plot
in VR? I could have taught the course more technically (resolution,
degrees of freedom, refresh rates) or from other perspectives like app
popularity or headset features. I’ve really kicked this idea around with
my VR research colleagues and we’ve found that any VR experience ‘worth
its salt’ will have these narrative plot features. Humans are pre-wired
to understand and love stories. We seem destined to always look for
cause and effect. We want to know why. Why does something happen? What
caused it? What happens if I touch this?

In VR headsets, the
learner/user is the ultimate cause of effects. From the first moment (I
taught that the Introduction is basically the Oculus Store ad…it is the
moment when the learner previews what they are about to experience), the
learner is beginning to move through the story.

Just donning a headset means that the learner is willing to be changed by the experience at hand.

When the headset powers up from dark to light, set the scene has begun.

Even
if the change and resolution happens far AFTER the headset comes off
(this is very true of workplace VR training or meditation apps), a
change does happen to the learner. So the elements of narrative plot are
there.

After all, if virtual reality does not change you, why did you engage in it?

Now…consider yourself introduced to teaching virtual reality.

Got
questions? Ask me! I have many more details like “what did we plan if
students could NOT use the Quest 2?” or “how did you teach narrative
plot in VR since VR is so new?”

Please visit the Unity College XR Innovation Lab for more information and first-of-their-kind courses.

Best wishes on your own course!

#OculusQuest
#VR #EdTech #TeachingInVR #CourseDesign #InstructionalDesign #Apps
#VRApps #VRGames #VRCurriculum #DeviceManagement #Privacy #Design
#Course #Experience #Learners #NarrativePlot #Elements #Reality #College
#Development #Process #Function #Immersion #Interface #Menus #Buttons
#VRSound #CreatingVR #DesigningVR #Layer #Storyboard #Persona #Pixar
#Storytelling #Accessibility

Updated images, mostly deleted stock photos, on February 18, 2026
November 11, 2021
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:
1. All possibilities are possible.
2. 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.
November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 6 of 6
Almost there! Only five years to go and then into the future, she writes and points like Doc Brown.

2014 – Future

2015 Google Cardboard

Source: Wikicommons

Google (again? They were just in Part 5) sends out Google cardboard in the New York Times (and other media),
expanding the new idea– a cheap VR viewer where you use your
smartphone and some special apps. Pluses: mass market availability,
cheap, created buzz. Negatives: absolutely no hands. People want to do
more than look, they want to touch.

2016 Emotiv

Source: Wikicommons

OK
– I will go on record and say I do not like this product. It records
the user’s brain waves when a certain action is requested (like open
email) and then translates future instances of those brain waves as
commands to repeat the learned action. Why don’t I like this? I cannot
find many instances of telekinesis that have worked so far for humanity.
Maybe in a future I can’t see, but for now, nope. Just remember, there
is no spoon.

2016 Mobile World Congress – Facebook gets into the VR action.

It is interesting to note that when very large corporations make steps into a certain technology, all of our heads should be turning.

Facebook’s
virtual world Horizon (once called Spaces) just opened in October 2019.
Horizon so far doesn’t seem to be getting a warm reception. [Update: Horizons was set to shutdown and then quickly backtracked this decision in 2026.]

This
invention represents an inflection point in technology where
we double back on ourselves and create a conundrum. When asked if they
would utilize a virtual world to ‘be’ (embodiment) with their friends, I
see most regular users of Facebook shying away from the concept. These
are the same users that lived totally without Facebook…uh…before
Facebook. As such, they were synchronously and physically with
people before. Being with people should not, by itself, weird out this
population. So why the hesitation near this concept now? Are we
‘friends’ with people and do things within Facebook that we would not do
when in-person with them? #Research needed here.

2019 January – Apple patenting new gesture capture devices?

Maybe?
As I’ve said though, no need for gloves or devices attached to people.
Ditch that idea. New gestures to mean new things though?? [Edit: I’ve deleted and now downplayed Apple here, they did got for a high end “Pro” headset…that didn’t do so well.]

2019 October – AWE conference in Munich #AWE2019

The headset detects hands. At the time, cool.

2019 – Magic Leap

I don’t love this product. Why? See my Future of XR Headsets article. Magic Leap can be redeemed in my opinion though. I will wait this out. [Update: Magic Leap died in 2024 and been resuscitated in 2025.]

2019 – Microsoft Hololens 2

Excellent
product. Why? Because the person looking at the user can see their
eyes. Besides what I wrote about in my Future of XR Headsets article,
Microsoft has taken a page from their own (MS Office) playbook for this
launch. They are going directly to the business market. As such, there
will be back-pressure into education to prepare learners for the
workplace. This product has many of the characteristics of future
success.

2019 – example of room-based VR

The plus here? Accessibility. Also, you could get more people into
the same experience. So this is VR for more than one person.

2019 – Microsoft demo of a hologram gives a partial keynote speech in Japanese, when the speaker does not speak Japanese at all.

Very much #thefutureistoday.

2019 – Disney’s The Void – example of location-based VR.

Negatives:
Must go to a location to experience this. Experience is not cheap.
Positives: Increase in quality content (Star Wars!) and you can
experience this in group (more than one at a time).
[Update: The Void died in the pandemic due to financial problems.]

So my predictions for the future of XR *based* on studying the past:
- Text will be a continuing necessity. Put it everywhere and in everything you can. Text has over a 2000 year history
  in human interfaces; it is a winner. We need 3D fonts that can work
  “floating” and over the top of a variety of light and dark backgrounds
  and we need them yesterday. #3DFonts
- User-customized ways of interacting with large amounts of information.
- Tech not touching you that still works.
- No need for gloves.
- First forms of what works will likely be two technologies squished together.
- Seeing your user as a human will be more important than the tech itself.
Interesting
that phone and sound are almost non-existent in my XR research. I
didn’t avoid it, but it also didn’t really show up as a necessary future
player. I’ll keep cogitating on that.

Keep an eye on science fiction. If you noticed, my sci fi sources dried up about 5 years ago and everything I shared was
a technological innovation. What Sci Fi sources are predicting the near
and far future? Battlestar Galactica? Handmaid’s Tale? The Marvel
Universe? [Update: it was much more Handmaid’s Tale that I care to think about.]

Amara’s Law: We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.

Going
forward, I am very interested to trace the justice concept (remember
Plato?) through this technology. It is significant that we can
criticize much of the current XR environment as being made by young,
white males in silicon valley. We need diversity and inclusion inside
the workforce making XR.

What comes next? I can’t wait to find out.

Miss any of the prior history of XR and you are curious? Have at it!

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

Have any time points that you think I should include? Tell us as a comment!

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #GoogleCardboard #Emotiv #FacebookVR #FacebookVW
#FacebookHorizon #AppleGestures #iLRN #AWE #MagicLeap #MicrosoftHolens2
#MicrosoftHologram #OmegaOphthalmics #DisneyTheVoid #Samsung2020
#GooglePixel4 #AppleAR #Spectacles #SmellOVision #FutureTrends #3DText
#YourUserIsHuman

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn on December 2, 2019. Updated on March 31, 2026 with replaced images and I deleted some (now embarrassing) future predictions.
November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 5 of 6

As a reminder, we are using science fiction as our time
machine vehicle to examine how good we are at predicting the future and
our intention is to predict the future of cross realities (XR).

1999 – 2013

1999 Tom Clancy’s Net Force

I
think I am probably one of the only writers that would put this in an
XR history timeline. The namesake is a police force of a future internet
where world citizens can relinquish country-based citizenship and
become a citizen of the internet. But the prediction I liked was the
description of how the internet could become an interface where the user
could customize their interaction with it. It is hard to describe (read
the book!). I find that prediction really tantalizing. The
closest reality we have right now is the fact that everyone’s home
screen on their smart phones is different, but this interaction with
large data sets is still in front of us. More on this topic in 2007.

1999 The Matrix – considered the first truly dark interpretation of the power of the internet.

Source: IMDB

In this story, the internet is a place to escape from. Take
one more look at that date: 1999. We’re really only about four years
after the big 1995 America Online expansion of subscribers. Only four
years and we’re already starting to suspect that this internet thing is
something to be wary of.

2002 Minority Report – Gloves used to manipulate screens and displays.

Source: IMDB

I
agree with the futurists that say that this vision of screens and
displays will be accurate (floating in the air, perhaps only visible to
the direct user). However, I predict: ditch the gloves.
You won’t need them in the future. Radar will be able to detect your
finger location in real time, so you don’t have to wear a device on or
in your body for this functionality.

2003 – Birth of Second Life – an immersive persistent world.

It’s still around. But multiple iterations of virtual worlds now exist.

2007 – The Croquet Project.
This is a now defunct project that basically embodied Tom Clancy’s
customizable browser. I love the idea. I still think that versions of
this idea will arrive in the future. (Sorry the picture below does not
come close to showing what it was. It’s hard to use images to describe
this.)

Source: Wikicommons

2007
– The first iPhone. Hard to believe we’ve been through all this history
and only just now did we arrive at the first smartphone.

Source: Wikicommons

2010 – The first tablet, the iPad.

Source: Wikicommons

I
didn’t originally plan to take us directly from Apple launch of iPhone
to launch of iPad, but I would like to show the likely user experience
pathway between these two items. Let’s pretend we are in an Apple
meeting room in 2008. We’re asked “What are our users experiencing?” The
report is “Well, they like pulling up the internet and messaging from
wherever, but still when they get on a (frequent) business flight, they
lug along their full laptop (for work files), a book (for reading when
they have a few hours ahead), some magazines (for light reading during
short delays) and something that might play a few very small videos.” So
Apple sees 3 different devices:

A phone – that does what phones do, and a little more

A laptop – that carries huge files and has a keyboard, but is otherwise clunky to carry

Print media & some stored music – stored on a device that does ONLY that function

So the iPad is the combination of those three needs. You might remember that the iPad was not launched as a phone replacement though.
Need a phone for communication? Actually, not so much. We now know that
smartphones are used for phone communication 5% of the time. That’s 95%
of the time they are not used as phones. The iPad allowed all of those
other needs to be met. Remember that Disney robot vacuuming, but the
true future was the combination robot vacuum. The combination – put
technologies together- wins again!

2013 Microsoft Kinect – Defunct but considered a commercial success at 35 million units sold.

Source: Wikicommons

Personally,
I love this device for the accessibility. Nothing touches the body! You
could be in a wheelchair and use this. You could not have hands and use
this. Love this idea! I pin this as a VERY future workable idea: devices that do not need to touch you.

2013 “Modern” smartwatches born.

2013 Google Glass – another defunct innovation

Source: Wikicommons

Interesting
to note the privacy backlash that happened in 2013. Everyone was
concerned that the camera on the Glass (wore by the user) would be
watching & recording them (not the user). Fast forward to
2019 and people whip out their phone, camera, & filter in a second!
My, how times change!

[Update from 2026: The backlash against Meta’s AR glasses grows.]

In case you missed the other articles in this timeline, here they are:

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #TomClancy #NetForce #Matrix #MinorityReport #ARGloves
#SecondLife #CroquetProject #iPhone #iPad #MicrosoftKinect #GoogleGlass

This article originally posted to LinkedIn on December 1, 2019. Updated font on March 31, 2026 with replaced images.

November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 4 of 6

If you persevered through Parts 1, 2, and 3,
well done! For me, the fun starts now as the timeline now includes my
lifetime which means I can remember and attest to the impact that
science fiction has had on our cross reality creations. We have color TV
so let’s almost finish up the 20th century!

1966 – 1998

1966
Star Trek and the communicator – a hand held device that could do
several functions, all without cords, wires, or being at a
panel/payphone.

1968 Heads-Up Display suggested for civilian, private use.

1969
Another paleo futuristic image, this one from Japan. This shows
adaptive technology used for learning, no teacher in the room, and robot
that doles out punishment.

Source: Shōnen Sunday, a Japanese Manga magazine, 1969.

1972
The first smartwatch, the Pulsar. I tried to find what definition
‘first smartwatch’ meant and I learned that it meant ‘you have to press a
button in order for it to display the time’.

The Pulsar, the first smart watch. Source: watchdepot.com.au

1974 This
video, One day, a computer will fit on a desk (1974) is excellent to watch. The world is predicted for
2001.

That’s
Arthur C. Clarke. What is it about science fiction writers that have
the ability to accurately predict the future? I think it’s first the
broad spectrum of options that science fiction provides. Second, I think
that they can also pick out design patterns that are viable.

1979 Star Wars – communication via recorded hologram.

Star Wars, A New Hope, Leia as hologram scene.

1982
EPCOT opens. This is the now-closed Horizons pavilion which focused
entirely on the future. I wanted to show this image because of the
robots in the home. One robot in the kitchen is cooking and
simultaneously cleaning.

Let’s zoom in on the “Butler” robot who is vacuuming.

The butler from the now-gone Horizons Epcot pavilion

Notice
how Disney has the Butler robot — who is capable of other
duties–literally using a vacuum cleaner that would have been present in
1960 or even 1982. So futurists often start by putting objects together to increase the functions. Need your floor vacuumed? No problem. Your robot will grab the vacuum and do it for you. One device will use another device.

But
today, we have Roomba vacuums. Disney was wrong. What happened? In the
future that came to pass, the robot and the vacuum cleaner were put
together into one device (and the butler’s duties are done by other
robots in our homes, I’m looking at you Alexa). Take note of that
pattern; what started as two devices actually became one.

This is a fun image from 1982.

Credit: Alan Kay

This
was drawn by Alan Kay who was drafted to draw a vision of how Atari
could be incorporated into the classroom. Bold moves for a game
company– then.

Note: “Here we see some of the earliest visions
from Silicon Valley of the personal computer in the classroom. The
future of education here is technological. It is branded. It is
game-based. There are still desks in rows and clusters. And students
still rebel.” (Watters, 2015)

1992 Snow Crash novel by Neal Stephenson.

Cover art for the Snow Crash novel by Neal Stephenson

Stephenson
writes of a virtual world, the impact of headsets, and a basic Sumerian
language programming plot. Philip Rosedale credits his wife as handing
him this novel to read that became the starting point for Linden Lab’s
Second Life virtual world.

1995’s The Net with Sandra Bullock is a techno thriller of an isolated remote worker.

Source: imdb.com

Problems
ensue when she discovers a tech problem and a large corporation goes
after her via the only conduit in her life: everything digital. Without
giving away the plot because I’ve heard some have never seen this movie (what?), there is a very interesting intersection with privacy, security, and medical records. Let’s just say that I’m very glad that this prediction of the future has not come true…yet.

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #StarTrek #Communicator #PaleoFuture #Pulsar #StarWars
#Hologram #EPCOT #Horizons #Disney #Roomba #Atari #SnowCrash
#NealStephenson #SecondLife #PhilipRosedale #LindenLab #TheNet
#SandraBullock

This article originally posted to LinkedIn on November 30, 2019. Updated on February 24, 2026 with better font and re-added images.

November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 3 of 6

France_in_XXI_Century._School.jpg: Jean Marc Cote (if 1901) or Villemard (if 1910)derivative work: TVJunkie, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

1910 – 1965

In 1910, the artist Jean
Marc Cote, is commissioned to create artwork for cigar boxes showing
humanity in the year 2000. Some of these predictions hit remarkably
close the mark.

Flying firefighters. No? You do know that departments are incorporating drones, right?

Villemard, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Schools transformed by just listening-learning (blog banner image).

Now educators and I can have a field day with just this image. I
would ask a group of teachers-to-be to analyze what was correct in this
prediction and what was incorrect. We could go on and on. The main idea
here to get is that learning was going to transformed to occur only by listening. How ridiculous, right? And yet, three years later in real life…

Thomas Edison examining some film. NPGallery, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

“Thomas
Edison famously predicted in 1913 that “Books will soon be obsolete in
schools” – but not because books were to be ground up by a knowledge
mill. Rather, Edison believed that one of the technological inventions
he was involved with and invested in – the motion picture – would
displace both textbooks and teachers alike.

“I believe that the
motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and
that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use
of textbooks,” Edison asserted in 1922. “I should say that on the
average we get about two percent efficiency out of schoolbooks as they
are written today. The education of the future, as I see it, will be
conducted through the medium of the motion picture… where it should be
possible to obtain one hundred percent efficiency.” (Watters, 2015)

From
1913 to 1931, we have the age of radio. By 1931, television was
demonstrated at the Iowa State Fair. Just two years after (so quick if
you think about it) that the University of Iowa started to experiment
with this medium. The first broadcasts were only video, no audio.
Because televisions were scarcely available commercially and the signal
was weak, users who could receive the signal tended to be with five
miles of the campus and had built their own TVs from parts. If you
wanted to hear sound along with the video, you had to tune in your radio
at the same time. Descriptions of the image produced in these
rudimentary TVs are actually scary (colors, shapes, very fuzzy). But it
is a start!

General Electric early television set. DogsRNice, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Professors
quickly figured out that they could broadcast radio from home and then
did so. Students still had to travel to campus and sit in seats to
listen. The next innovation was two way radio so students could ask
questions of the professor.

Haaren High School, New York, accounting class, by radio. Source: https://onetuberadio.com/2023/07/10/1923-distance-learning/

1957
The Sensorama by Morton Heilig is considered the first cross reality
machine. It provided visuals, sounds, vibrations, and smells.

Sensorama patent filing diagram, side view.

1958
I cannot resist including this image of an electric typewriter because
use of text is a common theme that carries through our history of XR and
I do believe it will continue into the future. What is interesting is
the boast that her grades will improve by 38% if you buy her an electric
typewriter. Her grades will improve in what…typing class?

1960 No history mentioning futurism would be complete without mentioning Walt Disney.

Source: expolounge.blogspot.com

In
addition to his many other achievements, Walt Disney was a visionary
futurist and he did not stop with just dreaming; he set in place plans
to create the future. This particular image is associated with his plans
for EPCOT, his Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow. I’d like
to point out that this image is from 1960 when Walt Disney was also
planning his displays for the 1964 World’s Fair (what would become It’s A
Small World and The Carousel of Progress). Walt never lived to see
EPCOT open but his flair for looking into the future appeared in the
rides as I will show in a future article. At this point, we note that he
looked at the future with ideas about community, centralization of
services, and the importance of neighborhoods.

Also in 1960, the first videoconferencing was conducted. This gives us the sharing of live video and audio.

1965 This paleo futuristic cartoon seems to predict a dire future of robots giving instruction.

“Robot teacher from the December 5, 1965 edition of the Sunday comic strip Our New Age” Source: Novak Archive.

But
look closely at the prediction: “Compressed speech will help
communications. From talking with pilots, to teaching reading. Future
school children may hear their lessons at twice the rate and understand
them better!”

Did they get that wrong? Ever noticed this choice at YouTube? [I’m not implying that learners can learn at a higher speed, I’m pointing to the availability of speeding up videos– a different thing altogether.]

YouTube playback speed choices

1966 Have another cartoon prediction.

Source: http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/france-in-the-year-2000-1899-1910/

“By
2016, man’s intelligence and intellect will be able to be increased by
drugs and by linking human brains directly to computers.”

Well, my intellect is increased by coffee. I won’t speak for you.

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #Change #WaltDisney #Epcot #ProgressCity #JeanMarcCote
#CigarBox #Year2000 #PaleoFuture #Sensorama #ThomasEdison

This article originally posted on LinkedIn on November 29, 2021. Updated February 24, 2026 with a better font and re-added images.

November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 2 of 6

Jules Chéret, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

As a reminder, we are using science fiction as our time
machine vehicle to examine how good we are at predicting the future and
our intention is to predict the future of cross realities (XR).

1881 – 1909

1881
– The invention of the theater phone (theatrophone) allowed users to
listen to the live opera from a location up to 1 mile away from the
theater. So you do not have to be there to be there.

Münzbetriebenes Empfangsgerät des de:Theatrophons. Circa 1892. Work is considered to be in the public domain in the US.

1882 Paleo futuristic image showing opera attendees in the future year 2000.
In case you are checking your watch, that’s 2 decades ago as of this
writing. Did I miss fish cars? Lizard cars? Actually, never mind. I
don’t think you’d find me going to the opera regardless of the kind of
car.

Villemard, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

1895
H.G. Wells published The Time Machine as a dystopian future view. Wells
was living in rural England and was seeing the industrial revolution
expand. He saw large factory cities swallow up young workers for long
hours in dark conditions and producing to satisfy an seemingly
insatiable consumer. He looked forward and saw a future where humanity
would become split into two groups that would almost would never interact.

Author Herbert George WellsPublisher William Heinemann, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

On
the surface was a Greek god-like existence of Eloi. They all looked
alike. (Shivers.) This group would be the consumers. They would benefit
from this world order but simultaneously be oblivious to the price for
their existence. They would be a small group, the 1%.

The
underground dwellers, the Morlocks, would run all of the machinery. They
would be the producers, and the generations of being underground would
allow for adaptations of evolution including large eyes, intolerance of
sunlight, and flesh-eating.

E.M. Forster read The Time Machine and rejected this future that H.G. Well foresaw.

However,
before we get to Forster’s publication, we visit one other futurist. In
1901, Frank Baum (of The Wizard of Oz) published The Master Key which
contains the first known reference in writing to what we would recognize
today as augmented reality:

William Wallace Denslow, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

“On
the other hand,” continued the Demon, “some people with fierce
countenances are kindly by nature, and many who appear to be evil are in
reality honorable and trustworthy. Therefore, that you may judge all
your fellow-creatures truly, and know upon whom to depend, I give you
the Character Marker. It consists of this pair of spectacles. While you
wear them every one you meet will be marked upon the forehead with a
letter indicating his or her character. The good will bear the letter
‘G,’ the evil the letter ‘E.’ The wise will be marked with a ‘W’ and the
foolish with an ‘F.’ The kind will show a ‘K’ upon their foreheads and
the cruel a letter ‘C.’ Thus you may determine by a single look the true
natures of all those you encounter.”

“And are these,
also, electrical in their construction?” asked the boy, as he took the
spectacles… All character sends out certain electrical vibrations, which
these spectacles concentrate in their lenses and exhibit to the gaze of
their wearer, as I have explained.”

“It’s a fine idea,” said the boy; “who discovered it?”

“It is a fact that has always existed, but is now utilized for the first time.” [A wonderful Wizard of Oz-like sense of humor. Making fun of the fantastical, but obvious.]

In December 1909, E.M. Forster publishes The Machine Stops. If
you have a chance to read it, I encourage that. It is a remarkable
story. If you substitute “the Internet” for “the Machine,” the story is
eerily accurate in some predictions of humanity. There is also very
interesting economy where humanity values the exchange of ideas above all other concepts (cough, Instagram, Twitter/X, Mastadon, Bluesky, etc.).

Short summary:

In
the future, everyone lives underground in these large columns of cells
because the surface is inhabitable. Each person lives in a cell that is
of a small defined space, one person per cell. The collections of people
are like bee hives. Everything a person needs to live is brought to
them in their cell by the Machine. Food, air, water, and once a day the
cell (and the person) are washed clean. The humans never meet or touch
in any way. They listen to concerts, speeches, and read books.

The
plot of the story unfolds with a son that yearns to escape to the
surface world; he believes it might be inhabitable and as such, holds
new promise for humanity. At first, he tells his mother about his desire
to leave via the Machine (a progenitor to Skype?) but the Machine,
intercepting the message, always fuzzes out when people express
unhappiness with the current order of things (cough, Facebook experiment).
Thus, the mother does not understand her son’s intent. She tries to
dismiss her worries. The son becomes insistent and travels to visit his
mother in person. When they meet, the mother is bothered by human touch.
He insists that he’s been on an exploratory climb and that he knows
other youth that are going to leave too. She will not leave the hive,
she cannot understand why anyone would leave the Machine. He leaves and
finds a livable world on the surface. The Machine, without humans to
service it, eventually breaks down and everyone remaining underground
dies; not because they are unable to leave, but because they lack the fortitude to do so.

Forster’s future vision does not have cannibalism but it highlights an amazing weakness; that the more humans depend on machines, the less human we will essentially become. Forster seems to argue that the human connection to the natural world is our salvation; a lesson not lost in 2019.

You’ve
finished a great deal of time travel but this was the slowest feeling
part of our journey. We’ll start speeding up in Part 3 which will
publish on November 29, 2019.

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

#Reality
#CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality #AugmentedReality
#VirtualWorlds #Design #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech
#Innovation #Change #HGWells #EMForster #TheMachineStops #TheTimeMachine
#TheMasterKey #FrankBaum #TheaterPhone

Originally posted in November 2019. Updated on February 24, 2026 with changed font and re-added images.

November 10, 2021
A History of XR Cross Reality Part 1 of 6

“The longer you can look back, the farther you can look forward.” ~Winston Churchill.

This
the first of six articles describing a history of cross reality,
otherwise known as mixed reality or XR, which encompasses the fields of
virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and virtual worlds (VW). I
have used the lens of science fiction as my time travel machine. This
is not meant as an exhaustive history, as I purposely chose my timeline.
Also in this effort, I engaged pattern-seeking from design research to
sharpen my prediction skills.

These articles started with two
recent research efforts: 1) an invitation to present on any topic at a
local university and 2) a project to forecast the future of XR
technology. As a result, I decided to craft a story, the history of XR.

Said another way, there is a reason this article series is called “A History…”. It is because it is one chosen history.

There are many possible others. For example, some will trace a purely technological history and start with Morton Heilig’s Sensorama device. Others will trace the use of alternative realities and perhaps start with flight simulators.

When I went to find the origins of science fiction, my research indicated that I should start first with paleo futurism. Paleo futurism
is the study of how, in the past, we envisioned the future. Said
another way, we have guessed about the future before. How good are we at
guessing? Once I did some research in paleo futurism, I found that I needed to look to utopian/dystopian literature as the origins of alternative realities in human thought.

Photo by Constantinos Kollias on Unsplash

That brings our time machine’s first stop back to 380 B.C. and Plato’s Republic.

Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1181161

This
is argued to be the first instance of humankind writing about an
alternative reality for themselves. Plato focused this reality not on
city planning or public education, but on the concept of justice. Plato
pitted 4 different definitions of justice against each other to see how
humanity fared. At least up until 1900, it is a very strong bet that
the rest of our science fiction sources know of this foundation.

(Note:
there may be non-Western roots of alternative realities that go further
back than 380 B.C. My choice to start with Plato simply reflects a place
where I was comfortable starting.)

Our next stop is the early 1500s A.D. What was happening on Earth?

Columbus
had made 2 journeys to the “New World” Undoubtedly, knowledge that new
lands had been discovered was spreading across Europe. The slave trade
had begun.

Bry, Theodor de,, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The Pacific Ocean had just been discovered.

Globalism is on the rise. Colonialism is not far behind.

In
1516, under King Henry the 8th, Brian Tuke was established as the first
Master of the Posts, the progenitor of the Royal Mail.

In Germany, a law established that only water, barley, and hops are the allowed ingredients to make beer.

In
China, the Nantan meteorite fell to Earth. The fall of this meteorite
was eye-witnessed by a farmer in a field and it was a rare iron-nickel
meteorite.

One of the final battles for the Holy Land was won by the Ottomans, establishing the Ottoman empire.

The
Aztecs were in their post classical period. This image is from the
Aztec sun stone, showing the belief in a cyclical calendar. We’ll see
cycles later as a key to prediction.

Gary Todd, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

The
first social housing was established in Bavaria—which still exists
today. Originally to live here, you had to have been a city resident for
the two prior years, have no source of income, and be a
Catholic. Widowed mothers were the primary residents.

In Venice, the first Jewish ghetto was established by law.

In
Florence, the first uffizi (office) was established for workers to come
to on a daily basis to do their work for the first “corporation.”

Txllxt TxllxT, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

I’ve brought up all of these elements to show that humanity was in flux, in a period of change when new ideas were flooding many different cultures.

Then, in 1516 Thomas More published Utopia, the progenitor of science fiction.

The Folger Shakespeare Library, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

As
I researched, I learned that the definition of utopia was not our
current meaning of perfection or “Eden.” Thomas More intended “Utopia”
to mean “nowhere” or “a place that does not exist.” The book was a
commentary that both supported and criticized socialism. Utopia had a
ruler for life but after he died, there is an election for a new
ruler. There was shared work, food, clothing, land, etc. Punishment for
crime, however, was severe. We would not recognize More’s concept of
justice today. Residents dug away at a peninsular to form the island of
Utopia. Interestingly, Utopia is not isolated for there are still ships
to other nations.

The very next year after Utopia was published,
Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the cathedral door and Canada was
discovered via the St. Lawrence River. This was a world deep in
change: new worlds, new religions, globalization, and also segregation
and slavery.

So we have our foundation of humans engaging with alternative realities. On to Part 2.

Part 1 380 B.C. to 1880

Part 2 1881 to 1909

Part 3 1910 to 1965

Part 4 1966 – 1998

Part 5 1999 – 2013

Part 6 2014 – Future

#Quotes
#WinstonChurchill #Reality #CrossReality #MixedReality #VirtualReality
#AugmentedReality #VirtualWorlds #Design #Plato #Republic #Utopia
#ThomasMore #1516 #Transmedia #XR #VR #AR #ARVRinEdu #EdTech #Innovation
#Athens #Globalization #Change

This article was originally posted to LinkedIn on November 17, 2019. Updated on February 24, 2026 with some slighted clarified writing, changed font, and re-added images.

(more…)

November 10, 2021