May 06, 1996
This Proceedings Article published as On-Line Conferencing in Distance education & technology: Future visions, Second annual professional development workshop Online May 06, 1996. University of Maryland University College [Link] [Info] [List all Publications]
Introductions My purpose in this presentation and in the discussion to follow for the next week is to explore the topic of on-line conferencing. Much of this conference thus far - not surprisingly - has focussed on the world wide web and HTML. To me, this is a very small - and in the end, less effective - part of the internet. The real power of the internet is not global publishing, it's global communication. And it is here that on-line conferencing shines. First, however, some background information and reading. As the introduction to this session mentioned, I am co-founder and administrator of an on-line conferencing facility called the Painted Porch MAUD (Multi Academic User Domain). The home page for the Painted Porch may be found at: http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/www/isiit/maud.htm One use of the Painted Porch is to conduct on-line discussions. Recently Jeff Mclaughlin (Cariboo College), Terry Anderson (University of Alberta) and I conducted an on-line seminar for the Canadian Association for Distance Education. This seminar was supported by a list-serv, much like this one, and a set of web pages. The web pages included links to background discussion about MAUDs, MUDs and MOOs. For those of you who have world wide web access, the address is: http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/www/isiit/cade.htm For those of you who do not have world wide web access, your plight is one of the topics I hope to address this week. While I'm dishing out web addresses, the issue of critical thinking came up quite a bit in the first week of this conference. One web resource I maintain (and have received a lot of feedback on) is a series of pages called "Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies". It may be found at: http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/fallacy/ And finally, my home pages may be found at: http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/ -------------------------------------------------------- Why On-Line Conferencing? In my mind the need for on-line conferencing is obvious, however, in my experience a need for on-line conferencing needs to be shown before it will be adopted. This is partly due to history. On-line conferencing has its origins not only in email (the application most of you are familiar with) but also in role-playing games such as Adventure. For those of you not familiar with Adventure, it is a piece of software which spread through mainframes in the late seventies and eighties. The user was given a description of a situation and asked to enter commands describing chosen actions. Depending on the commands entered, different situations would be presented and, if the user was at all successful, he or she (usually he) would be led through a series of "rooms" deeper and deeper into a dungeon. In this dungeon, said user would seek to aquire objects, fight monsters, and in the end conquer the dungeon. Needless to say, this game was frowned upon by system administrators (or their managers, as many of the games were installed by system administrators). Adventure was the inspiration for what is now a phenomenon on the internet, the Multi-User Dungeon, or MUD. Indeed, as the name implies, a typical MUD is nothing more than Adventure with the element of multi users added. Originally run over a single network, they were soon designed to run over the internet. People from around the world could log into a MUD and participate with others in the same adventure. Needless to say, system administrators really didn't like this, and many placed restrictions on MUDs and MUDding. OK, why this story? The point is, many people consider on-line conferencing to be frivolous and wasteful of system resources. This has had in my mind profound consequences in the nature and shape of on-line conferencing today, beginning with the fact that its use must be justified over and over. So, why on-line conferencing? I argue for on-line conferencing by analogy. With the advent of the book it became possible to store all necessary information about a particular subject in an easily accessible highly portable format. The invention of the book made it possible to learn everything that needed to be learned without the use of oral communication. And indeed, oral communication is wasteful. People read a lot faster than they can talk. And a lot of talk is spent in trivia - it's common to start a speech with a joke, but much less so a book. And books are much more efficient. They do not wander all over the place or stray off-topic. They can't be interrupted. They don't need to be remembered; the same information, word for word, is still there the next day. But as it turns out, the book did not replace oral communication in learning. It turns out that learning is not merely a cognitive phenomenon, it is a social phenomenon as well. People need much more than information; they need to know why they are getting this information, how it can be used, how other people use it, how other people understand it. They need support, encouragement, and relevance. None of this is provided by a book, and, in the end, none of this is provided by the world wide web. So too while we could say that on-line conferencing has all of the disadvantages of oral learning, we can say that in the same way, and for the same reasons, it is essential. ----------------------------------------------------- Real Time Conferencing These definitions may be old hat for many readers but they bear repeating here: the distinction between synchronous and asynchronous communication. In synchronous communication, dialogue is conducted in real time. That is, one person makes a statement and another person hears that statement at approximately the same time the statement is made, and may offer a response to that statement within a few seconds. The classic example of synchronous communication is a face-to-face conversation. In asynchronous communication, there is a time-delay between statement and response. The statement is stored in some device - a letter, perhaps, or a book, or computer memory - and is accessed at a later time by the receiver, who may then respond in the same format. The classic example of asynchronous communication is email. Approaches to on-line conferencing may be split down this divide. Let's look at the classics: Asynchronous Communication: - email - I assume everybody knows what this is (otherwise this conference would be impossible to conduct). - usenet - most readers are probably familiar with usenet as well. Synchronous Communication: - MUD - as discussed above, the MUD is originally an on-line multi-user game. Participants interact with each other using speech commands. For example, I may "tell taylor" that it's time to get a new torch. - IRC - stands for "Inter Relay Chat" and is probably familiar to most readers. Participants log on to a server and join various chat groups. Chat groups are usually defined by topic. Once logged on, anything a person types (with the exception of commands) is seen by any other person logged onto that chat group. The advantages and disadvantages of each mode of communication stem from the time factor. MUDs and IRCs allow for immediate responses and quick question-and-answer sessions. Because responses are immediate, they are more revealing of a person's character, temprament, and knowledge (hence they have certain advantages for testing). Like any conversation, however, on-line chats have their limitations. It would not be possible, for example, to conduct this seminar through a MUD. Even were the system able to accomodate so many people, a room full of 700 people having a conversation at once would be chaotic (though this chaos does illustrate one of the appeals of MUDs as recreation, in the same way that a nightclub is so suited to recreation). Further, except in rare cases where a conversation is logged, there is no record of what has been said. If a person is right there and paying attention, they understand what was said. Otherwise, they miss it. Like a lecture or a forum, late arrivals cannot catch up on what they have missed. Also, like verbal conversation, synchronous communication is more liable to distractions and interruptions (more so, even, because the computer places a certain distance between individuals which makes them less aware of the consequences of their actions). ----------------------------------------------------------- The Primacy of Text All of the on-line conferencing systems discussed above have one feature in common: they are text-based. This makes them fundamentally different from the world wide web and from contemporary information media such as television, radio, casettes, and CD-ROM. And it explains why, until very recently, the internet was dominated by well-educated (and therefore upper-income) users. This has been discussed at some length in the previous posts in this conference and so I would like to linger on it for a moment. For there is a widespread concern that access to the internet is limited to the rich and well-educated. But let me contrast the internet to another well-known communications medium: television. TV is, as we all know, almost universal. In western countries especially almost every home has a television set. The number of hours spent by children and adults in front of the "boob tube" is legendary. Television is pervasive, it is influential, and there is no widespread concern about lack of access. But discussed less is the cost of television. It's not cheap, or more accurately, it's not a lot cheaper than internet access. A cheap television, like a cheap computer, may be had for one or two hundred dollars, while more expensive models may cost in the thousands. And while watching transmissions costs nothing more than the inconvenience of commercials, many people choose cable even though this may mean a monthly expense of thirty to sixty dollars. While it's true that television is a little cheaper than the internet, it is not cheaper by any order of magnitude. Cost alone does not explain why only three percent of Americans (to cite a figure from a previous post) use the internet. The newness of the technology does, to a large extent, but in what does this newness consist? I suggest that it is the fact that the internet has been - and still is - perceived by many people as hard, in exactly the same way they see reading as hard. The recent surge of the internet parallels exactly the development of the world wide web. And what is significant about the world wide web is that it is not merely text-based. It incorporates images, sounds, and video. It is thus a lot easier for people to understand than the internet of old. Because the old forms of conferencing are text-based, they have been largely left behind by the world wide web (and I point to the majority of discussion in this conference as evidence). But the world wide web is not a conferencing tool. It is more similar to a book (a picture book, perhaps, but still a book) than a conversation. ------------------------------------------------------- Web Based Conferencing Although the world wide web is not suited to conferencing, this fact has not prevented people from trying. Some efforts of note: Hypermail: this is a program which takes email archives and displays them as web pages. Input to hypermail is typically submitted from a web page using a form. Messages can be sorted by author, by date, or by topic (groups of messages about the same topic are known as "threads"). For an example of hypermail, go to http://www.thespot.com and look for the Spotboard. Web Chat: this program is very similar to hypermail except that messages are displayed on the same page. For an example of Web Chat, go to http://www.parkland.assiniboinec.mb.ca/chat.html It is also worth noting that Netscape has incorporated both email and usenet into its web browser. This allows a person to go from a world wide web page to a newsgroup, or from an email message to a web page, simply by clicking on a link. In my mind, none of these is successful, and for two reasons: First, despite their attachment to the world wide web, they remain text-based. Hence, they are no improvement upon - and considerably slower than - email, usenet or MUDs. Second, they are asynchronous. Even though they are designed to emulate real time chat, it requires input from the user to update a web page. There is always a time lag because users do not want to update their web page every second or two (and speed makes this impossible in any case). I am not familiar with any web-based chat programs which avoid these two obstacles. Input would be welcome here if in fact I am in error. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Graphical MUDs Another approach to graphical on-line communication is the graphical MUD. two major approaches are currently in use: First, the model developed (and heavily marketed) by The Palace depicts users as icons and surroundings as background images. Conversation is typed by the user and appears as text-bubbles over the appropriate icon. In order to use the palace, users must download a dedicated client program and install it on their computer. This program then makes a connection over the internet with a palace server. In my opinion, the Palace model is not the way to go. Even with a 56k connection it still takes several minutes for background images to load. Additionally, the amount of text which can fit into a text bubble is limited. With the exception of character icons flitting about, the displays are static and predictable. None of the richness of a MUD is present in the Palace. Check for yourself at http://www.thepalace.com Another approach - and in my mind a more promising approach - is the use of virtual reality in a mud environment. Several such systems exist; a client-server assembly called "Other Realms" is an example. Because of the use of virtual reality, windows NT or 95 is required to run the client (windows 3.1 users need to install a 32 bit emulator). My own experience with this software is that it is unstable, but future versions should reduce this problem. ------------------------------------------------------ Conferencing Systems Another approach to on-line conferencing is on-line conferencing systems. Two major examples spring to mind: Lotus Notes, and First Class. Each of these requires a server and a client. Users use the client software to log onto the server and enter a conference. Conferencing systems have the advantage of allowing for threaded discussions, private and public mail, retrievable documents, and participation from a distance. However, conferencing systems are for the most part asynchronous. This means that they have no clear advantage over the much more popular and widely used world wide web. The installation of additional software and the lack of easy access to other internet resources - such as web pages - also speaks against them. Finally, they are - like the traditional internet - text-based. This means that while they are useful for business applications, they will not capture the imagination - and the minds - of a large number of users. -------------------------------------------------------------- Technical Issues Let me now turn from this survey of the different approaches to on-line conferencing to some of the technical issues which will be faced by people who wish to start a service of this sort. First, in all cases, a server is required. A server is a computer connected to the internet which is running software which can accept logons and interact with remote users. As a general rule, the better the computer, the faster the server. At a minimum, however, nothing less than a 486 should be contemplated. Because many users are involved, as well, memory requirements are often high. 32 megabytes of RAM is my minimum recommended configuration for any on-line service. The operating system is also important. While MUD software exists even for DOS-based machines, the fact that many users are involved means that the server must be able to perform many tasks at once. DOS is not suited to this; nor is Windows 95. Most MUDs and IRCs run on Unix or Linux software. Windows NT is also a popular choice. I can't speak for Apple computers because I don't know anything about them (nor do I care to, but that's a different story ;) ). Line speed is also a major factor. It is important to consider line speed not only from the server end, but also at the user end. Many people will connect to the internet using a modem, and this may mean speeds as low as 2400 baud (though 14400 is better considered to be an average). As a rule, the lower the line speed, the less fancy you can be (and by "less fancy" I mean more text, fewer graphics). MUDs and IRC shine in conditions of low line speed. Because they are text-based, and because typically only a few lines of text are sent at a time, MUDs are accessible even by people running an old IBM PC or an Atari ST with 2400 baud. They are therefore much more accessible to people in rural or remote regions. Their disadvantage - as has been noted - is that they are text-based and therefore not as easy to use as the world wide web. On the server side, anything less than 56K is probably too slow (I have run MUDs on 28800, but I haven't liked it). Even at 56K performance may be sluggish is there are many users (one advantage of asynchronous communications is that the users are not all logged on at the same time. This means that linespeeds may appear faster). Obviously, better linespeeds mean better performance (though over T1, text-based systems simply top out because there isn't any more data to send). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Time One factor which is seldom discussed in the area of on-line communication is time. Simply put: it takes a LOT of time to put together a quality on-line conferencing facility. The amount of time varies with the complexity of the software. One advantage of packages such as Lotus Notes or FirstClass is that they require little configuration (compared to, say, MUDs). This advantage, however, comes at a cost: there is much less flexibility for the user at the other end. MUDs, by contrast, can be configured in a wide variety of ways. This is possible because service providers can define a virtual environment using a pseudo coding language (usually a variation of C). Hence, a person logging onto a MUD may greet an object which talks, read some mail, look at a bulletin board, participate in a discussion, act out a scenario - in short, any form of interaction which may be imagined. However, a small mud may take 200 hours to design. My experience also is that all on-line conferencing systems require maintenance. There is no such thing as a computer program which doesn't crash, or which doesn't have bugs which need to be worked out. The amount of time required for maintenance varies depending on the complexity of the software. ------------------------------------------------------------------ User Issues One of the major factors to be faced when implementing an on-line conferencing system is the user's inability to use the system to its full potential. In text-based systems, designers are faced with the fact that users will not read all the text. This is a weakness in many MUDs and MOOs (designers, are you listening?). At the Painted Porch, we determined that a user will read six to eight lines of text at a time. This had a major impact on our design. Room descriptions are kept very short. Help files are kept short. (As an aside, this knowledge has had an impact on my other electronic conferencing. Readers of this post - although very long - should have had an easier time because the paragraphs are short. I would be interested in hearing perceptions). Another factor is user training. Standard applications, such as email, usenet or the world wide web, have a significant advantage here because the user is likely to already know how the system works. This is one major advantage of a list-server conference such as this. But even the slightest deviation from the expected may cause havoc with users. A list service called e-conf (to which many readers here probably subscribe) required that its server commands be placed in the subject field of an email, rather than in the body as is usual for a list-server. This resulted in a deluge of messages sent in error and a great deal of hand-wringing on the part of the list owners. Conferencing programs which require custom clients - and this list includes The Palace, Other Realms, Lotus Notes, FirstClass, and more - also require training. While much of the training may be accomplished by the software itself, nonetheless service providers will have to budget time to help people with installation and to find the help files. In the case of MUDs and IRC the training issue is even more significant. At the Painted Porch we designed a training session which we require all users to follow before they are allowed to log on to the MAUD as a whole. This is because while the set of commands required to effectively use the MAUD is relatively small and intuitive, people need practise and instruction before they are comfortable in this environment. One of the significant weaknesses of MOOs, in my mind, is the obscurity of the command set. many commands in a MOO require the use of the @ character. This is not something people remember easily when they are working in an unfamiliar environment. IRC presents similar difficulties because commands need to be preceeded with a / character (more recent IRC clients allow users to use buttons instead, however, the training issue remains even with buttons). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Concluding Remarks In my original presentation to the committee managing this seminar I stated that I would like to discuss two major areas: a) Options for on-line conferencing b) On-line conferencing system requirements I hope I've accomplished these in the discussion above, though of course I must wait for your feedback and responses before I know. :) I also stated that an objective of mine is to produce a conferencing FAQ which could be posted periodically to DEOS-L and e-conf. Here is where I need your help. While I have listed a number of options above, my list is not exhaustive. So if you are familiar with software which I have not mentioned, please send me the name of the software and the URL where I can obtain relevant information. Any comments you may have about the software would also be appreciated. In the FAQ, I intend to arrange the material much in the manner presented in this paper. It would be useful to know whether you think this is a good arrangement, or whether you feel some other form of categorization would be helpful. Finally: I have not discussed some of the more advanced software (for example, the internet phone). I have limited my discussion to software which uses text and graphics only. Should these applications also be considered to be within the domain of on-line conferencing? If so, should interactive television be considered as well. Where, in other words, do we draw the line? Or should we at all. Thank you for your time and patience in reading this. I look forward to your comments. This page is stored on the world wide web at http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/iuc96.htm and will be updated through the week according to the imput I receive from participants. - Stephen
