Since we were aware of those concerns, and, in many ways, shared them, we attempted to implement or to create a variety of interfaces that are easy for novices to access, use, and understand. As our main goal, we did not wish to limit access to our sites to people only owning specific types of computers. At this point we have programmed an IBM PC compatible interface using Pueblo from Chaco Communications, Inc., a Java based interface using CupOMud by Alex Stewart, and a "WOO" interface developed by Charles Willgren, and the authors. To ensure that users with Macintosh computers have access, we have implemented Amy Bruckman's MacMOOse client and Juggler by Andreas Dieberger.
We have noted that these interfaces allow users to access and function in the MOO more quickly than a purely textual-based client did. We have created a sense of presence for the virtual environment through a point-and-click menubar, and navigational features (point-and-click exits and graphical maps, and images for various rooms). Through these elements we have given users something real to compare the virtual with, giving the MOOs an air of familiarity and the user a feeling of proximity.
In this presentation we will demonstrate how our work in programming a variety of interfaces for our MOOs lead to a more intuitive environment for students and instructors who use our MOOs. The ultimate goal of the paper is to explore the benefits of developing graphical interfaces for use in educational MOOs. Through this exploration we will discuss the future of MOOs in educational settings.
Keywords: computer-mediated communication, telnet, MOO, interface
design, sense of presence, Pueblo, Java
Introduction
Since computers were first used in composition classrooms, there have been consistent difficulties in training student users in how to make use of the technology while accomplishing the goals of the class. This training difficulty is no more evident than in computer mediated communication (CMC) environments like MOOs. Promoters of such environments point to collaboration and empowerment as their most valuable feature. Detractors draw attention to the difficulty for users to learn the intricacies of computer-based environments without a great deal of training. For MOOs in particular, detractors indicate that many users find the somewhat arcane, text-based interface extremely difficult to negotiate. For example, the standard method of working on a MOO (a no-frills telnet client) afforded no easy way for users to learn how to participate in the world. To become comfortable with a MOO, users have to use it for several days, and become comfortable with a series of commands, all the while building a conceptual idea of the virtual space. The learning curve of the MOO, as well as its confusing interface, detractors insist, blockades effective use.
In this presentation we will explore the effects interfaces can have on users of MOOs. In order to establish a context for MOOs in CMC, we will first review relevant research on the value of CMC to composition studies, linking that research with an overview of two important CMC communications systems: Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment, and the environment that carries such a system even farther: MOO. After an overview of the successes we have attained in using MOO, we focus on the problems that using a MOO as a communications environment presents. Determining that the textual interface of the MOO is the source of the difficulties, we demonstrate how the development of a graphical interface is more intuitive and allows users to share in a MOO more readily than with the non-graphical interface. Throughout the paper we will clearly demonstrate the effects of the research we have conducted, and the programming we completed to address our audience's needs and desires. In all, our purpose for designing the interface is to ensure that MOO continues to be used and be on the forefront of CMC environments.
Composition Theory and the Value of CMC
Because of the simultaneous influences of social constructivism and computer-mediated communication’s potential for collaborative work, much scholarly discussion of the value of CMC for writing instruction has occurred in the past decade. To illustrate, several articles in the 1990 collection Computers and Community highlight typical arguments. Thomas T. Barker and Fred Kemp conclude that an understanding of the educational environment from the context of "network theory" empowers students and transforms the classroom into a social community of learning. What Barker and Kemp see as CMC’s impact on students and teachers echoes throughout the majority of the essays. Kathleen Skubikowski and John Elder, in their contribution "Computers and the Social Contexts of Writing" discuss the student construction of a writing community through "networked corresponding." Several others focus on political and pedagogical issues, such as feminism, teacher decentering, student collaboration, and student authority (Selfe; Langston and Batson; Handa). Carolyn Handa, editor of the collection and writer of the final essay, provides a key to the social constructivist use of the computer in composition. Acknowledging that computers are changing the dynamics of the classroom and larger educational contexts, she calls for the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) over computer-aided instruction (CAI):
CMC of Daedalus and MOO
Many writing instructors cut their CMC teeth on the Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment (DIWE), which provides LAN support representative of Barker and Kemp’s "networked environment". In one module of the environment, InterChange, Students log into the DIWE server and communicate synchronously with each other by typing in their message and sending it. The Daedalus Group, Inc., producers of the package, explains InterChange as follows:
While DIWE provided a great introduction to networked environments,
it soon grew limiting. Another, often neglected domain of CMC became popular,
the Multi-User Domain (MUD). A MUD is a network-accessible, multi-participant,
virtual reality which is primarily text-based (Bruckman 1992; Curtis 1993).
Originally produced in 1978 as multi-user adventure games based upon the
popular "Dungeons and Dragons," MUD environments have proliferated and
diversified around the world. Unlike DIWE, which was
limited to local area networks, MUDS allowed
access from any telnet program from anywhere around the world. Also, one
variety of MUDs, termed MOO, became object-oriented, allowing interaction
in and with the environment beyond conversation: students could move between
virtual spaces, interact with other objects, and enhance the environment
through constructing and programming objects.
Integration of MOO into English courses – A success story
The Salt Lake Community College (SLCC) English Department began using a MOO server in 1994 as a means of supporting distance education composition classes, and to offer an alternative means of communication for in-person composition courses, peer-response tutoring, instructional development, and writer to writer collaboration. SLCC’s "Virtual Writing Center MOO" (VWCMOO) (bessie.englab.slcc.edu port 7777) was developed in part through a State of Utah Higher Education Technology Initiative (HETI) grant that was obtained to create online composition courses such as SLCC’s Online English 101 (see http://www.slcc.edu/wc/online.htm) (Bown 1996).
Success at SLCC
Along with Louise Bown and Stephen Ruffus, the coordinators of the "Online English 101" grant, many other instructors were interested in the possibilities of using the MOO as an alternative to traditional classroom activities. SLCC instructor Elisa Stone, for example, saw the MOO as a possible way to lessen the gender bias of the traditional classroom where she saw that male students tend to dominate conversations and group activities, and women students are often stifled (Stone 1996). Like Handa (1990), Louise Bown, who was using the MOO in both her traditional classes and in the online composition course, saw the MOO as a means of decentering the traditional classroom. On the MOO, she believed, the power structure of the in-person classroom is dissipated. Instead of just "being in charge," the instructor becomes more of a participant in the class. Elisa, who taught the Online English 101 course after the initial developmental stages, came to similar conclusions:
Success at DSU
As at SLCC, "The Virtual Trojan Center MOO" (VTCMOO) (telnet://alpha.dsu.edu:7777) grew out of a desire to provide on-line education at Dakota State University. Started in the Spring of 1997, the VTCMOO was originally conceived as a virtual space station (Deep Space University MOO telnet://alpha.dsu.edu:4444), but was redesigned as a counterpart to the "bricks and mortar" of the Madison, South Dakota campus. VTCMOO initially gave distance education students a means to interact with other students in non-academic situations similar to hallway chat and dorm interactions. However, through a grant from DSU’s Office of Distance Education, the MOO administrator developed instructional methods and materials and now uses the MOO in composition and technical writing courses, both on-line and in the classroom.
One interesting development that occurred during the grant project was the increased involvement of students beyond mere MOO chat. Because of DSU’s unique mission to integrate computer technology into every discipline (DSU’s English degree is in English for Information Systems, for example), students are often intrigued and excited about digging into the technology. One student, Joe Kepley, had some background in the adventure gaming side of MUDs, so naturally became involved in the project. He worked to produce 3D images that were actually VRML-ready. Working within the space station environment, he envisioned large scale projects for different departments, including the design of Cartesian space and space craft that operated in that space; the possibility of moving beyond Cartesian space to relative Einsteinian space; the construction of planets with ecosystems and social systems for conceptual study in the physical and social sciences; and the development of economic simulations for business applications. Another student, Stacey Peters-Walters, became involved in the VTCMOO. In order to help students and teachers communicate, act, and enhance the MOO, she aided in writing a MOO manual (Haas & Peters-Walters 1997), including information for accessing the MOO, getting a telnet client, and how to build and edit objects for teaching purposes. Both Joe and Stacey illustrate the potential for student involvement in MOO and interface development.
Success Outside SLCC and DSU
Interest in VWCMOO was not limited to SLCC and DSU students and faculty,
however. Students, scholars, and other people from around the world interested
in writing, distance education, or educational uses of MOOs were working
on VWCMOO and VTCMOO. Through these efforts the MOOs users shaped them
to be places "...on the Internet where people get together to take online
writing courses, to talk about writing, or just to create spaces for and
about writing" (Gardner 1998). In fact, the writers of this paper initially
met each other on VWCMOO since we were both interested in discussing computers
mediated communications, and in developing the MOO for educational purposes.
Problems with MOO
Aside from these successes, however, everyone involved in the developing MOOs immediately saw problems with MOOs as a communications environment. We saw difficulties in
The most common initial concern was the "party atmosphere" of the MOO: real-time online class discussions through a MOO is like being in a room of 20 people and hearing absolutely everything that everyone says. Threads of conversations flow across the screen in quick succession, often bewildering the novice MOO user. As Stephen Ruffus and Louise Bown later concluded in their report on the HETI grant:
Orientation – getting lost
One of the benefits of the MOO also became a problem: the virtual space became confusing for students, often resulting in their becoming "lost" in the MOO. To illustrate, the Dakota State University MOO was first built to resemble a space station with the name Deep Space University (DSUMOO). However, people often became confused about where they were in the MOO, not understanding "port" and "starboard", or how to move between rooms. For example, students would often "wander off" or get "stuck" in a room when first entering the MOO and the teacher would have to spend time instructing them on how to get back with the class. As a result, class time was spent off-task, and students often missed out on the discussion going on.
To navigate the virtual world, students and instructors had to be comfortable with the "virtual space" of the place, as well as with several non-intuitive MOO commands. For instance, exits are listed in the description of the room, and students often overlooked their names. Also, the parsing of commands, such as "look note on board" was somewhat daunting.
Likewise, the first time that SLCC offered the "Online English 101,"
the instructors spent two weeks training the students on the use of the
technology, and getting them familiar with the MOO virtual environment.
At that time, students had a difficult time remembering commands to navigate
VWCMOO, and were not easily able to visualize their "position" in the virtual
world. Many students became frustrated since they had to learn so much
about the technology and an "imaginary world" at the expense of the content
of the course.
Textual interfaces – the source of the problems
In listening to students and instructors, we noticed a common element in discussions of problems: learning to operate in the MOO was very difficult since it was a "text-only environment" and required a "bare Telnet client" computer application that did little for making the MOO easier to use. Telnet clients are programs that run on the user's computer and allow her to connect to a server using the Internet protocol called "Telnet." Unlike a web browser, for instance, all "bare" Telnet clients are text only (see figure 1). Their obvious benefit, nevertheless, is that they allow the user to interact in real time. Overall, so-called "bare" Telnet clients require a great deal more experience to operate than simple web surfing.
An analogy between MOO text-only Telnet interfaces and DOS-like command line interfaces helps to explain the difficulties that novice users faced. Both interfaces presuppose that the user will learn a number of commands and concepts in order to function competently within the "system." Albeit the command line does allow the user perhaps to learn a rudimentary programming language that may lead to a future ability to program in a more complex code, this benefit seems outweighed by the "learning curve" that goes along with not only gaining a command vocabulary, but also gaining an understanding of the broad and here-to-for unfamiliar concepts of "files", "directories", "programs", and how such things are stored or accessed on a computer.
Overall, for the user uninterested in learning how a computer operating system works--a user who just wishes the computer to perform a function--such technical learning is seen as an impediment to use, something so arcane that it is to be feared. Thus in the history of computer interface, the command line moved very quickly to menu-based systems and then to more intuitive graphical user interfaces such as Microsoft Windows or the Macintosh OS. As Ziegler, Vossen, and Hoppe (1990) surmise, "Since the early 1980s a new generation of office workstations has become available...which are trying to solve...usability problems by introducing a highly visualized, object-oriented interaction style between user and system" (27). Such systems, termed "direct manipulation" by Shneiderman (1982), allow the user to more efficiently complete tasks since "The more the functionality of a system is broadened, the more the ease of learning is determined by the degree of consistency of use between the different functional domains" (Ziegler, Vossen, & Hoppe 1990).
To compare text-only MOO interfaces to command line interfaces, then, is not too drastic a step. Like command line interfaces, a text-only MOO requires the user to learn many commands and unfamiliar MOO concepts before she can "function," or to put it more appropriately, before she can communicate and exist in the virtual world. Not only must the user grasp basic commands such as speaking (with either "say" or a quotation mark preceding their statement), looking at the space they are in (with the command "look"), or manipulating object in that space (through a variety of commands), but they must also read the text interface thoroughly to derive visual space cues, and intuit from the interface how to get to other rooms. In order to get to a new space, the user must type in the "exit" name. All the while the only "physical" cuing is the descriptive text proved to the reader/user (see figure 1).
Figure 1. A "bare Telnet" client accessing the Virtual Trojan Center MOO (VTCMOO) (telnet://alpha.dsu.edu:7777). All text, including descriptions, exit signifiers, and conversation sent from the MOO server scrolls up the screen and eventually disappears. Users must type in all movement and manipulation commands. Note the "Obvious exits" list, which requires the user to type in the exit name that is in the braces.
While one might argue that making the MOO a completely text-based world forces its users to become better readers (as we believed when we first started writing for MOOs), based on our experience, requiring the user to learn a set of obtuse commands and to grasp even more foreign proto-physical concepts is a waste of time. Many of us would like students to learn to program a MOO; however, most of the students we have encountered do not want to go that deep into the environment. Most want to get into the MOO, participate in a conversation, and, perhaps, manipulate objects that someone else has created. Such behavior does not limit a student’s use of the MOO, any more than any computer usage is limited because a user does not know how to program, but makes use of programs already existent on the system. Granted, if a user learns to program the computer she will tap into a resource that she has not previously used, but requiring programming knowledge would be like saying all car users should learn how to rebuild their car engines so that they can get better performance.
In either case, command line or text-only MOO, the obtuse interface takes a great deal of time to learn and to be comfortable with, more time than many instructors can allow. Like her colleagues, Tiffany Rousculp, an instructor at SLCC, initially attempted to make use of the VWCMOO because she was very interested in the use of computers as learning tools and communication environments. At the time, VWCMOO was completely text based. Although the maintainers had attempted to make the MOO as readable as possible, Tiffany encountered problems which she later described:
The Solution: Graphical Interface and a sense of presence
Researchers in human-computer interactions (HCI) have discussed how to design interfaces to be more user-friendly. Basing their claims in cognitive and hypertext theory, they seem to agree that a sense of presence is primary in helping users negotiate the interface and the program. With a sense of presence, the interface becomes transparent AS an interface, leading the user by association to grasp the conceptual framework of the environment.
Theory of interfaces
The first issue when discussing interfaces is to define what an interface is. The simple definition of interface as where two different worlds meet is common. However, the actual way that the worlds meet has raised debate. In her book, Computer as Theater (1991), Brenda Laurel tries to negotiate the conflicting views into a terse phrase: "how humans and computers interact." The interface, in Laurel’s terms, "is that which joins human and computer, conforming to the needs of each." Theirry Bardini (1997) furthers Laurel’s definition by asking how each player in the game (user and computer) "understands" the other. He claims that in understanding the user, "the computer represents the designer. In other words, the computer might get to learn about the user from the representation of the user that the designer of the interface embodies in his/her design." Bardini thus defines the interface as "the representational space where user and designer meet."
Taking a theatrical notion from Laurel, Bardini sees the user, designer, and computer as actors in a narrative of interactivity. He proposes that
What causes a user-oriented interface to succeed? This second question involves the theoretical elements of interface design. Most HCI theorists bring in notions of hypertext at this point, particularly association and connection theory. The association theory of hypertext began with Vannevar Bush’s 1945 articles "As We May Think," with the popular quote:
Having defined the interface, and described the hypertextual concepts that underlie it, the next step is to provide the cognitive characteristic of a successful user-oriented interface that operates through connective associations. Much current research on cognitive issues in HCI investigates the World Wide Web and web site construction. John Eklund (1997) focuses on cognitive mapping through interface ergonomics. He argues that providing users with a variety of navigational tools, or cues alleviates the feeling of disorientation, or "getting lost" in hyperspace. In another discussion of cognitive issues relating to hypermedia, Samuel Ebersole (1997) examines cognitive issues for the users of the interface Netscape Navigator. In doing so, he posits that the key issues include "local and global coherence and cognitive overhead." Cognitive overhead, as Ebersole defines it, involves the user’s attempts to maintain an understanding of location in the unfamiliar interfaced environment. "In summary," he writes, "minimizing the distractions of disorientation and unfamiliarity will enhance comprehension."
To accommodate these cognitive needs in the user, theorists suggest several key aspects of interface design:
According to Lombard and Ditton (1997), the concept of presence is "at the heart of it all." As suggested above, a diverse group of people is interested in presence, how to create it, how to use it effectively, and how it mediates or generates a variety of responses. In reviewing relevant research, Lombard and Ditton (1997) find six interrelated but distinct conceptualizations of presence:
This definition of presence can be applied to interface design as primary design objectives. In all the goal is to produce an interface that becomes invisible and produces a perceptual illusion of nonmediation.
Moving from a general theory of interface design to examine MOOs particularly, we find that our formulation of terms and concepts for interface design provides insight. As of yet, there has been minimal study of MOO presence beyond anecdotal information (Towell, Hansen, Mercer, Leach, Rubin, Prisulksy, and Glusman 1995; Towell and Towell, 1995, 1997). For the most part, every discussion of "sense of presence" in MOOs has privileged one conception of presence over others: telepresence. In fact, in the one empirical study of presence in text-based networked virtual environments, the researchers admit that their instruments "were assessing the feelings of ‘being with’ instead of ‘being there’ (Towell and Towell 1997). The bias that seems to limit discussions of presence to social presence or telepresence is symptomatic of the text-based limitations of MOOs. And yet, such boundaries can be crossed through a shift in the interface design, integrating the principles outlined above.
Telepresence, "being with" others through an interface is fairly obvious in MOOs, which operate primarily as communicative environments. Talking, as in the use of the telephone, gives users a simple means of connecting, as the words of the other person’s voice provide social immediacy and intimacy. In addition, MOO communication provides means of communication that are much richer and complex, such as the "emote" that allows users to represent non-verbal communication, or actions, to other users.
On the other hand, a sense of "being there", or virtual presence in text-only MOO"s is next to impossible. Without physical cuing, it is more difficult to interact with others. It takes a great deal of learning and knowledge to imagine the text-only virtual world as a physical space with "real" human events occurring in it. MOOs do attempt to create the illusion that one acts in a physical place, that the user is situated. However, this situating occurs through textual descriptions of the space, textual lists of exits, and textual expressions of actions that occur. As we argued above, presence should suggest more to our human physical reality. Clicking on an object connects the physical act to the virtual as "direct manipulation". If one wishes to take something in the real world, she reaches out and takes it. If she wished to go somewhere, she gets up and goes. If she wishes to look at something she moves her eyes and her head to look at it. In graphically-based MOOs such as we have developed at SLCC and DSU, each of these actions is connected with the physical act of moving the cursor and clicking. Admittedly, it isn't much of a physical movement, but it seems more intuitive than typing a command like "look cup." Thus the visual MOO is far more intuitive since it equates the virtual physical action with a real physical action.
Designing the Pueblo interface
Our response to the problems presented by completely textual interfaces was to program a "graphical user interface" for our MOOs, taking into account the context, needs, and goals of the user. Our initial efforts centered around creation of rudimentary web pages which the MOO server could serve to traditional web browsing software, but our focus soon shifted to a freeware program Pueblo (see http://www.chaco.com/). Pueblo allowed us to present our MOOs in an easy-to-use graphical manner that allows users to "point and click" their way around (see figure 2). While we have not abandoned the use of web pages and our research into other visually-based interfaces to make VWCMOO and VTCMOO more accessible, Pueblo has been the main focus of our programming efforts. It allows programmers to design the interface with the previous outlined principles in mind.
According to its manufacturers, Pueblo allows MOO developers "to create immerse virtual worlds, with sound, hypertext, 2D and 3D graphics" (Chaco 1995). While accessing the same features of the MOO as traditional non-graphical Telnet clients, Pueblo can display graphics, support HTML tags, play sounds and other multimedia files, offer hypertext links to outside documents, and provide "clickable" links to commands and "rooms" on the MOO. In all, Pueblo has many of the same attributes of a web browser. Pueblo’s clickable links look similar and perform similar functions as a web brewer’s links while providing for synchronous communication. Most users learn to use web browsers rather quickly, since they offer intuitive cues as to how to read other documents.
Figure 2. Pueblo graphical interface accessing VWCMOO. The screen is subdivided into three sections: a reading pane, a movement (exits) pane, a command bar, and a typing pane. Note the use of graphics in the reading window to help the MOO user place themselves inside the virtual world. The "Exits" list allows users to click on the places listed to go to them. Like the Web, items can be made into hyper links to materials on the Internet or within the MOO.
In the Pueblo program (see figure 2), the MOO user sees a reading window, a movement bar with special functions buttons, and a space to type in what they would like to say. The reading window provides information about what is in the room. We use distinctive graphics in each room to give the user a visual cue as to where she is in the "virtual space." In figure 2, the reader sees an image of an Italian plaza and a description that places them in the virtual world. The plaza represents the central room of VWCMOO and is the first room that most users enter when the log in. The MOO also tells the reader who is in the room with them. If another user speaks, her conversation is placed after the description and the images. Thus, after a time, the room description information scrolls away, being replaced by the conversation. The user can either use the scroll bars to review conversation or click on the "Look" button to redisplay the room information. Since conversation scrolls away as with non-graphical clients, we have also implemented "room recorders" that students can use to review the classroom discussion. These "class logs" appear in a separate window in the Pueblo environment, thus allowing to read the past conversation and participate in it at the same time (see figure 3).
Figure 3. Pueblo with a "pop up" window showing the past conversation in the room. The window allows the user to read the previous conversation, thus lessening the impact of a quick-paced conversation.
To move to the different rooms in the MOOs, users simply select from a list of places shown in the "Exits" bar. Because the users can click on the exit, they do not need to type it in, or remember the exit name as they would in a non-graphical client.
We have also made several other objects on the MOOs such as virtual notebooks that allow users to share their writing from a word processing program more easily. Separate "pop up" windows have been liberating for the interface, in that they allow students to have multiple windows open, much like having a book open while discussing it in class (see figure 4).
Figure 4. Pueblo with a "pop up" window. These separate windows allow the user to have several documents open, yet continue to share in a conversation.
Furthermore, Pueblo's ability to display web pages that exist outside the MOOs, makes it possible for instructors to include webbed resources. For example, users can make links to outside readings on the web, class syllabi, or other such documents. Likewise since Pueblo is based around a Web browser-concept, users can implement Netscape "plug ins" to expand Pueblo’s capabilities. For instance, a Microsoft PowerPoint user could use a plug in to show their presentation to multiple users on the MOO.
The graphical interfaces allowed us to create these useful program objects that make understanding and using the MOOs easier. Setting up the interfaces and experimenting with other ways of using the MOOs were essential to our efforts to make the MOOs accessible to novice users.
Limitations of Pueblo
Even though we found that Pueblo is a highly effective and useful client, the program does have one serious limitation: it can only be used on Microsoft Windows systems. While this limitation did not matter so much at SLCC and DSU where virtually all the computers students use are Windows-based, we did find that users outside the institutions using non-Windows systems were stuck with traditional text-only clients. In essence, this operating system block left them with no interface solution.
To answer this limitation, we began to explore non-system dependant clients that were based on the same graphical-interface principals we have applied in Pueblo. These interfaces include developing an interface that uses the user’s web browser. Since most operating systems have web browsers written for them, we reasoned that users with different operating systems could take advantage of a graphical interface as a Pueblo user could.
Last year I spoke about the WOO, or web version of the MOO. The limitations of this Web page version of the MOO became quickly obvious: the real time interactivity was lost. To allow for real-time communication from the WOO, VTCMOO and VWCMOO are accessible through Java-enabled web browsers. Using an applet named CupOmud (Stewart 1997), developed by Alex Stewart, users may log-in to the MOO from the web, and view the corresponding web page in a frame above the applet (http://diana.dsu.edu/vtc/java/cupovtc.html). As a result, users don't need to get a telnet client to gain the synchronous aspects of the MOO--they can view the graphics in the WOO frame, and interact with other players in the applet frame. Therefore, for those who do not have access Pueblo, the Java applet provides similar access.
Effects of the Graphical Interfaces
Developing these diverse interfaces had positive effects on how users participate in our MOOs. For example, when first implemented the Pueblo interface cut the learning time of students in SLCC’s online courses drastically, since the students did not need to know as many MOO commands as they did with bare Telnet, and did not have to read the MOO as intently to understand what "room" they were in at any given time. Instructors discovered that students were getting online much more quickly, were able to move about the MOO with little confusion, could manipulate objects on the MOO without trouble, and started discussions more readily than they were in the non-graphical interface. Instead of taking two weeks to train students in using the MOO for SLCC’s Online English 101, the training for new MOO users has dropped too less than 20 minutes. Most students have shown that they have very little difficulty remembering how to get on the MOO, move around, and begin discussions with their colleagues.
Like the web, the graphical interface is also more enticing, and we have seen more people interested in learning more about MOOs and MOOing than previously. Instead of being called "old fashioned" or "out of date," a graphically enhanced MOO appeals to more current sensibilities and desires of users. The graphical interface permits the user to explore leading edge technologies. In this exploration, the user shares in the development and expansion of the MOO project. In other words, rather than being consigned to the past as an "old fashioned" type of "chat room", the graphically enhanced MOO dances along the leading edge.
Conclusion
The overall effect of these graphical interfaces was that our MOOs became
more user friendly. New and old users alike found participaton in the MOOs
easier or less cumbersome. Since the interfaces are either based in a Web
browser context or share many attributes with Web browsers, users found
them simple to master, and much more appealing than their text-only counterpart.
The appeal of the new interfaces has encouraged many new MOO users to become
involved in design and programming, and has revived interest in MOOs for
users who stopped using MOOs after other Web-based CMC environments were
developed. A fortunate side effect of research in graphical MOO interfaces
is that they help to insure that MOOs do not disappear as CMC environments.
Because of their new-found relevency to current notions of human-computer
interaction (HCI), MOOs with graphical interfaces push the perceived limits
of the MOOs text-only origins. Continued research , design, and experimention
with other different types of interfaces for MOOs is essential to assure
that MOOs remain accessible to users, and that MOOs do not become out-dated,
unused communication environments.
References
Bardini, T. (1997). Bridging the gulfs: From hypertext to cyberspace. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/bardini.html (11 March 1998).
Barker, T., & Kemp, F. (1990). Network theory: A postmodern pedagogy for the writing classroom. In C. Handa (pp. 1-27).
Bown, L. (1996). ONLINE ENGLISH 101 AT SALT LAKE COMMUNITY COLLEGE. http://www.slcc.edu/wc/papers/CWC.HTM (11 March 1998).
Bown, L., & Ruffus, S. (1998). HETI final report: Online English 101. http://www.slcc.edu/wc/bowruf/hetislcc.htm (11 March 1998).
Bruckman, A. (1992) Identity workshops: Emergent social and psychological phenomena in text-based virtual reality. http://lucien.berkeley.edu/MOO/identity-workshop.ps (11 March 1998).
Bush, V. (1991). As we may think. In J. M. Nyce & P. Kahn (Eds.), From memex to hypertext: Vannevar Bush and the mind’s machine (pp. 85-110). Reprinted from the Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), (1945), 641-649.
Chaco, Inc. (1996) Pueblo 2.0 feature list. http://www.chaco.com/pueblo/doc/pueblo-2.0.html (11 March 1998).
Curtis, P. (1993). Mudding: Social phenomena in text-based virtual reality. http://lucien.berkeley.edu/MOO/DIAC92.ps (11 March 1998).
Daedalus Group, Inc. (1997). Daedalus InterChange. http://www.daedalus.com/info/interchange_info.html (11 March 1998).
Ebersole, S. (1997). Cognitive issues in the design and deployment of interactive hypermedia: Implications for authoring WWW sites. Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century, 5(1-2), 19-36. http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1997/n1/ebersole.txt (11 March 1998).
Eklund, J. (1995). Cognitive models for structuring hypermedia and implications for learning from the world-wide web. AusWeb95 Conference. Ballina, New South Wales, Australia. http://www.scu.edu.au/sponsored/ausweb/ausweb95/papers/hypertext/eklund/index.html (11 March 1998).
Gardner, C. (1998). Writing advising. The SLCC online writing center. http://www.slcc.edu/wc/tutoring.htm (11 March 1998).
Haas, M., & Peters-Walters, S. VTCMOO Manual. http://diana.dsu.edu/vtc/manual/moobie.htm (11 March 1998).
Handa, C. (Ed.). (1990). Computers and community: Teaching composition in the twenty-first century. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Handa, C. (1990). Politics, ideology, and the strange, slow death of the isolated computer or why we need community in the writing classroom. In C. Handa (pp. 160-84).
Hawisher, G., & Selfe, C. (Eds.). (1991). Evolving perspectives on computers and composition studies: Questions for the 1990s. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Langston, M., & Batson T. (1990). The social shifts invited by working collaboratively on computer networks: The ENFI project. In C. Handa (pp. 140-59).
Laurel, B. (1991). Computer as theater. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2). http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/ussue2/lombard.html (11 March 1998).
Rousculp, T. (1998, 25 January). Personal E-mail.
Schneiderman, B. (1982). The future of interactive systems and the emergence of direct manipulation. Behavior and Information Technology, 1(3), 237-56.
Selfe, C. (1990). Technology in the English classroom: Computers through the lens of feminist theory. In C. Handa (pp. 118-39).
Selfe, C., & Hilligoss, S. (Eds.). (1994). Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology. New York: MLA.
Skubikowski, K., & J. Elder. Computers and the social contexts of writing. In C. Handa (pp. 89-105).
Stewart, A. (1997). Cup-O MUD: The adventure continues. . . . http://www.du.org/java/CupOmud (11 March 1998).
Stone, E. (1996). Computerized writing classrooms as sites for social change: Negotiating gender and technology. Computers and Writing Conference. Logan, Utah.
Trigg, R. H. (1991). From trailblazing to guided tours. In J. M. Nyce & P. Kahn (Eds.), From memex to hypertext: Vannevar Bush and the mind’s machine (pp.353-367). San Diego: Academic Press.
Towell, J. F., Hansen, P., Mercer, E., Leach, M., Rubin, I., Prilusky, J., & Glusman, G. (1995, November). Networked virtual environments and electronic conferencing. In S. M. Bachrach, D. B. Boyd, S. K. Gray, W. Hase, and H. Rzepa (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Electronic Computational Chemistry Conference [CD-ROM]. ARInternet: Landower, MD.
Towell, J. F., & Towell, E. R. (1995). Internet conferencing with networked virtual environments. Internet Research 5(3), 15-22.
Towell, J. F., & Towell, E. R. (1997). Presence in text-based networked virtual environments or "MUDs". Presence, 6(5), 590-595. http://www.mca.anl.gov/home/towell/presence.html (March 11 1998).
Whorf, B. L. (1927). On the connection of ideas. Letter to Horace B. English, first published in 1956 in Language, thought, and reality (pp. 35-39). Cambridge. MA: MIT.
Ziegler, J.E., Vossen, P.H., & Hoppe, H.U. (1990). Cognitive complexity
of human-computer interfaces: An application and evaluation of cognitive
complexity theory for research on direct manipulation-style interaction."
In P. Falzon (Ed.), Cognitive Ergonomics: Understanding, Learning and
Designing Human-computer Interaction. San Diego: Academic Press. 27-38.
Dr. Mark Haas
Assistant Professor of English, Director of Center for Documentation
Research
Dakota State University
Madison, SD 57042
haasm@columbia.dsu.edu
http://homepages.dsu.edu/haasm/
Clinton Gardner
Instructor, Writing Center Instructional Support Coordinator
Salt Lake Community College
cgardner@englab.slcc.edu
© 1998. The author(s), your name(s) will go here, assign(s) to the University of New Brunswick and other educational and non-profit institutions a non-exclusive license to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author(s) also grant(s) a non-exclusive license to the University of New Brunswick to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web and on CD-ROM and in printed form with the conference papers, and for the document to be published on mirrors on the World Wide Web. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author(s).