Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

Kari Lippert wrote:
> <clearing throat>
>
> I've been lurking for some time now and reading and trying to 
> understand the basic user requirement that is driving this work. I 
> have to admit this is as close as I've seen.
>
> I understand "teleport" (and believe if you can define it well enough, 
> smart people can make it so) but it leaves me asking why? Why would a 
> user desire to "teleport" from one VWE to another? The answer to this 
> will, I believe, help you focus on what needs to be included in the 
> definition of what it means to "teleport", and what can be safely set 
> aside for the moment.
>
> Kari

I think "teleport" is an implementation detail. Does this use case seem 
like a good description of what you consider a "teleport"?


      2.1. Friend Invite


        2.1.1. Description



   1.  User A uses virtual world system A that complies with MMOX
       interoperability.
   2.  User B uses virtual world system B that complies with MMOX
       interoperability.
   3.  User A wants user B to visit him/her in system/world A, and gets
       a suitable URL from his/her system (A), and sends this to user B
       using any transport (mail, IM, integrated communication, carrier
       pigeon, ...)
   4.  User B clicks/activates this link.
   5.  After a brief "loading" screen, user B sees user A in user A's
       environment, including a representative form of any simulated
       object in that environment.
   6.  User B can interact at some level with the objects from user A.
   7.  Objects that user B take out of inventory show up in some
       representative form for both user A and user B.
   8.  User A can interact at some level with any objects that user B
       bring out of inventory.



Note that I assumed that if you have avatars and objects, you also have 
text/speech, but that's a poor assumption -- it should go as line 5.5 in 
this use case, I guess.

Sincerely,

jw