Inhabiting Mixed Reality Architecture

1
Inhabiting Mixed Reality Architecture
Moving Office
Holger Schnädelbach Bartlett School of
Architecture, London Mixed Reality Lab, Nottingham
2
Structure of this talk
Background and grounding Development
environment Methodology Design Study Results
3
MRA Abstract
Architecture structures patterns of co-presence
Hillier Hanson
Created within rules of society
Shape the norms of society
Resulting structure publicly available civic
legibility / stable basis difficult to adapt
Erosion of the need for co-presence by technology
Writing, telegraph, telephone, tele-conferencing
Social interaction becomes de-spatialised
Resulting structure private no awareness of
others actions / very flexible easy to adapt
4
Concrete Example
Modern organisations
Flexibility
Distributedness
Physical buildings adapt slowly
Telecommunication technologies
Used to compensate
Loss of what Architecture is so good at
Random encounters, accountable social
interaction, spontaneity
Mixed Reality Architecture
Combine properties Architecture / Digital
Technology
Dynamic topology, spanning physical and virtual
spaces.
Spatial framework for dynamic patterns of remote
co-presence
5
Mixed Reality Lab University of Nottingham
Schools of Computer Science, Engineering and
Psychology
Research into Mixed Reality - new technologies
that merge the physical and digital worlds
Number of groups are coming together range of
expertise Image Processing and Interpretation
Research Group (IPI ) Virtual Reality
Applications Research Team (VIRART) Centre for
Research in Development, Instruction and Training
(CREDIT) Institute for Occupational Ergonomics
(IOE) Centre for Industrial Medical
Informatics (CIMI) Communications Research
group (CRG)
Distributed teams
Distributed projects
International co-operations
6
Mixed Reality as continuum (Milgram et al)
Mixed Reality
physical augmented reality augmented
virtuality virtual
Feiner et al (1997), The Touring Machine
Benford et al (1996), The Internet Foyer
7
Collaborative Virtual Environments (CVE)

• Common Spatial framework for online social
  interaction
• - three spatial dimensions and one temporal
  dimension

Desert Rain
Data visualisation
Avatar Farm
Augurscope
MASSIVE3 - features similar to other VR
renderers Common spatial reference Up to 20
users embodied as avatars Support for
spatialised audio video streaming interaction
with all objects Locales world
structuring Aspects individualising the
outlook on environment Record and replay of
all events as seen by the computer
8
Survey establish base line description of
Some aspects of informal social interaction
Social relationships Spatial relationships
before intro of MRA
Always before the staggered introduction at
respective sites
Each survey had 2 parts
1 existing informal social interaction within
the work environments of participants
2 social interactions that were not currently
taking place, but were deemed desirable for work
by participants
9
Survey results summary
Existing informal social interaction
Physical proximity does not amount to close
working relationship
Desired social interaction
Many of our most important work colleagues are
located off site
The environments are ideal for the installation
of MRA
10
Main study 1
Application area
Support distributed social networks / everyday
activities
Time span, location
Longer situated study, located at MRL and partners
11
Methodology
Situated prototyping
Create prototypes in real settings, study them in
use and over the long term
Methods Vignettes System logs Diaries Surveys

The benefit of an approach that uses multiple
methods
12
Main study 2
Focus MRA as tool to dynamically re-configure
topology of immediate environment
Starting point Architectural cell. Intuitively
fundamental concept in Architecture
Definition these experiments are based on
Architectural cell as spatial unit in which
people are regarded as co-present and have a
symmetrical relationship to each other.
13
Mixed Reality Architectural Cell 1 (MRACell)
Architectural Cells
Enclosure
Co-presence
MRACells novel architectural interfaces
Combine one physical and one virtual
architectural cell
Dynamic
Co-presence between remote and local people
Two distinct spatial frameworks
Physical fixed topology, fully embodied
Virtual flexible topology, represented
Making buildings more spatially dynamic
14
Mixed Reality Boundaries
Joining physical and virtual spaces by creating a
transparent window between them
Physical view into virtual
Virtualview into physical
Technology that can be used for the
implementation of Mixed Reality Architecture
15
Mixed Reality Architectural Cell 2 (MRACell)
Representation within virtual environment Mixed
Reality Architectural Cell
One physical and one virtual cell permanently
attached to each other
Inhabitant has control over Position Orientation
Privacy settings
16
MRACells in virtual environment
17
On screen interface
18
Room Layout
19
Video
20
Prototyping Phases
1
October 2003 3 local MRACells
Boriana, Holger, MRL
Social interaction well supported in principle
Interaction taking place in physical space only
and across MRA
Echo in the system speak up and slowly
Mouse and keyboard too slow
The fixed MRACell used infrequently still
useful for awareness
Privacy settings used less than expected
More movement than expected - movement to
attenuate audio levels
21
Prototyping Phases
Changes
Audio settings, reduce audio nimbus
Joystick
4 Aspects of Awareness
of the presence of others
of the identity of others
of the actions of others
reciprocity of awareness
An extra communication channel
The MRL MRACell
Map
Explanations
MRA ready for more general and remote deployment
22
Prototyping Phases
23
Data Collection
24
Data analysis set-up
25
Integration a first pass
26
Vignettes Excerpt
27
Inhabiting MRA 1
Groups of inhabitants
Core inhabitants
Permanent inhabitants
Visitors
Different roles
Control
Reaction
Collaboration around the interface
Navigation interface designed for single user,
but collaboration around it worked
Ownership of the MRACell used in navigation
Own / Somebody elses
28
Inhabiting MRA 2
Motivations
Purposeful
Reactive
Awareness
Activities in remote physical spaces
Overall state
Activities in virtual space
Distributed, shared and legible control over
awareness
Social interaction
Greetings
Conversations
Initiating conversations
Dealing with privacy issues
Virtual position
Privacy issues
Privacy concerns
29
Inhabiting MRA 3
Configuring MRA for others
Demonstrating MRA
MRA as local prop for interaction
The interdependence of the architectural topology
and social interaction within it
The social network within MRA
Maintaining existing networks
Extending networks
30
A dynamic architecture 1
Virtual adjacencies
31
A dynamic architecture 2
32
A dynamic architecture 3
Spatial integration
33
www.mrl.nott.ac.uk www.equator.ac.uk Thank
you