After reading the IBM and Linden Labs collaboration for a case study, I have many questions left unanswered. I find it a bit misleading that the study, done by Linden on their own product they love dearly, takes quotes and opinions from IBM. Throughout the article, there are no negative words said about Second Life. The only part that has any negative connotation is a part on how some people were “skeptical” but they are now Second Life believers and users. I find that to be a untrue. With over 200 people using Second Life at the conference, I refuse to believe that everyone enjoyed the experience. I have been on second life for almost 3 months and I still find things aggravating and just overall confusing. Sure, it may have saved money and time for people, but were the interactions really the same? How did talking happen between two people? Through typed messages? I could easily see that getting jumbled and people taking a long time to discuss very basic things. The study says “attendees raved”, but there are no actual quotes that make me believe it was amazingly successful from multiple people. Of course IBM is going to tell Linden they found the event successful, because they don’t want to look bad. Additionally, Linden won’t let itself look bad. I just find the entire study a little unsettling.
As far as the event actually goes, personally, I do not think I would have enjoyed a virtual setting. Sure, these may be “nerdier” people who works for IBM, but altogether I do not think it is the best way to communicate. I think if you 100% have to do it online, some sort of video chatting service would have been better. There is something about looking a person in the face that, to me, demands attention. Maybe it is just how I have been using Second Life, but I find the virtual setting confusing and possibly a hindrance to the event. I am just unsure of the whole study.
