Hi David / Jim

Regarding the experience, here's a link to a YouTube video for
VLoggerCon - the conference center that they created in SL is
absolutely stunning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdWjHxSJmnk

I think that avatars provide a means for social interaction that isn't
possible through IM alone. I'm still not sure what this all means at
the moment, but I'm pretty sure we're witnessing the birth of a new
medium of expression. What it means is anyone's guess ...

Here's another video by Tao that shows some incredible production values:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfDdjBKVQOM&mode=related&search=

I'm still chatting with folks who have SL experience to figure out
what bandwidth requirements there will be and whether this is even
possible.

I think that if we do go ahead with this that it will have to be in
such a way that we set realistic expectations for folks attending in
SL as well as working within the constraints of the technology.

I'll report back on what I find out ...

Cheers,
-John
http://www.iunknown.com


> I tend to agree with Jim W. that I'm not clear what the advantages
> are.  I should probably state a couple of things, from the organizers'
> perspective -- which I hope will help, though please keep in mind that
> I don't really know what Second Life is.  (I've tried to learn a little
> since getting your email [which is why I hadn't responded to you] but
> I'll go ahead and answer in ignorance :-)  So I'm reacting to the kind
> of thing I *think* it is, and the issues I *think* it would raise.  If
> I'm wrong, please fill me in.
>
> We're almost certainly not going to want AV feeds, other than the
> official conference ones, set up during the conference.  It's
> logistically difficult, and would also raise the issue of allowing
> another feed for another purpose, and another, and so forth.  We're
> not in a position to go down that path, I'm afraid.
>
> The bandwidth issues that Jim W. raised are also a concern.  Getting
> connected at conferences is always a challenge... and the lower the
> ratio of bandwidth to constituency served (e.g., with IRC), the
> better.
>
> In general, we want the in-person conference experience to be the full
> in-person conference experience.  Again, I'm saying this based on what
> I think SL might be, rather than what it actually is or isn't... but
> my concern is that the expectation would be raised that whether you're
> at the conference or not, you're fully participant in the Q&A sessions
> and so forth.  We don't want to raise that expectation.  We may handle
> Q&A by having people queue up for a microphone, or by raised hands, or
> questions submitted in advance by attendees, or whatever -- and those
> logistics are going to be handled based on the in-person event and the
> people who are there.
>
> That's my current take on it -- with the important disclaimer about my
> ignorance included :-)
>
>
> David
>
> --
> http://www.rubypowerandlight.com => Ruby/Rails training & consultancy
>    ----> SEE SPECIAL DEAL FOR RUBY/RAILS USERS GROUPS! <-----
> http://dablog.rubypal.com        => D[avid ]A[. ]B[lack's][ Web]log
> http://www.manning.com/black     => book, Ruby for Rails
> http://www.rubycentral.org       => Ruby Central, Inc.
>
>