Virtual conferences and meetings are suffering from what you might call ‘The Tiller Effect’ (h/t @scottjenson) THREAD... /1

We keep talking about them as though they are equivalent to in-person events, but they absolutely are not. If we keep thinking that way we will miss new opportunities. Bit of history… /2

When the first cars emerged, designers chose a tiller for the steering input. They were clearly thinking about small boats, even though the much more effective steering-wheel already existed on ships. /3

We have a habit of doing this. Over and over again, as a new medium or technology emerges, we struggle to think beyond our existing metaphors. /4

You can see this in the history of early film; at first they shot side-on to the action, like the viewer was in the audience of a theatre - a broken metaphor. It took many years for the unique language of film to emerge (e.g. the close-up). /5

VR is going through this at the moment. Is it like... games? Film? Theatre? Probably something new, eventually. I caught myself thinking the other day: "how can someone do a workshop in VR where the participants ‘write' on virtual post-its?" /6

That’s the wrong question, of course. The real question is: can we use VR to create a collaborative virtual space to share and develop ideas in real-time? /7

Video-based meetings/events are going through the same thing right now. They’ve existed for a while, but mostly as a poor substitute for the real thing. /8

We all feel this when we videoconference with people we don’t know well: the conversation doesn't flow as well in groups. There’s a social barrier that the technology doesn’t naturally overcome. /9

So when someone says… “The best bit of conferences is socialising” - we automatically start thinking about how to reproduce things like coffee breaks remotely. That’s entirely natural, but we may need to think differently. /10

The serendipidous social element of an in-person event *might* be reproducible, but it won’t happen in the same way (if at all), because the new technology has different constraints, possibilities, and social norms. /11

You have to think start thinking from first principles, and you have to better understand the constraints. Like, body language and eye-contact - these are things that let us ‘read the room’ when we mingle - how else do you know who is open for a chat with a stranger? /12

I haven’t seen this solved well… yet. Once we do, then I think we’ll see much more interesting ways of getting together - ones that understand the limited social bandwidth of the medium. Of course, we may have to wait until the tech opens new possibilities. /13

But when we have the popular tools being run without much design help or long-term R+D, I’m concerned we’ll be stuck at home with limited tools, clicking on dialogues we don’t need and not understanding what the real possibilities are. /14 (END) https://twitter.com/movito/status/1261412474894667778?s=20