Multimodal Semiotics and Collaborative Design

in flux in inworld collaborative design activities. The design methods that co-designers applied
show variations depending on the structure of design teams and preferences of each individual codesigner.
Similarities also exist in terms of collaborative evaluation and modification of designs,
and the ways in which the co-designers conceptualize the needs for avatar interaction.
In Metrotopia, mutually agreed roles of each participant were performed in a more structured way,
and within a strict time-schedule, because the research schedule had priority. Caitlyn’s researchoriented
needs formed the first design principles, and formed a relatively strict framework for codesigners
to formulate rhetorical strategies. Not only the process and time-schedule were
organized according to her experiment, but also the form and content of various interaction spaces
and their multimodal organizations were evaluated and confirmed in relation to her
methodological requirements. However, in the PAL project, the design team was formed through
inworld relations and the project was initiated by Curiza’s personal and professional interests.
Therefore, PAL’s time schedule and division of tasks within the project were more flexible. This
allowed each co-designer to generate ideas, test and evaluate these with other co-designers, and
build their designs in various locations within PAL. Each member of the team was given more
freedom to create their own styles. PAL’s design process also differs in terms of its evolution and
transformation throughout the years. In the workshop case, the students had limited time to learn
and perform content-creation in SL, and their capacity to represent their messages was restricted
by the learning process. The students divided the tasks by their individual interests and the ways in
which they thought they could contribute more efficiently. Their interests were also led by their
prior experiences with similar software –3D modeling tools or game-worlds – and their capacities
to employ these tools/platforms to their group activities. In these three case studies, most of the
actors had different motivations for being in SL and creating content, as well as participating in the
specific design projects. Their access to and competence in socially available (semiotic and
material) resources were related to their interests and past experiences in SL.
The design solutions can change, conform, adopt or resist to codes and conventions, such as the
visual and experiential norms of simulating the real-world physics. In fact, the analysis shows that
these meaning potentials result from a constant semiotic flux between the social actors, and the
negotiations of their rhetorical intentions. The collective design decisions that are made during the
inworld meetings, in which the avatars of co-designers meet in SL and co-produce the content
together, are good examples of these emergent processes. During such meetings, the co-designers
collectively encode the meaning potentials through multimodal channels, while the visitors’ actual
semiotic experiences may possibly be different than what the designers intended. Although for new
users it may be harder to imagine how potential visitors will react, the more experienced content
creators in the design team can have insights about how people navigate, interact and socialize in a
241