Social VR for Professional Networking: A Spatial Perspective

TL;DR

The paper investigates how the spatial design of social VR environments shapes professional networking, addressing a gap in empirical understanding of VR space as a social cue. Using in-situ observations and interviews with 13 participants across 20 VR events, it identifies four key spatial cues—area size, connecting pathways, magnets, and scene conventionality—that influence interactions and reveal misalignments between spatial cues and social meaning. The study offers design implications, including historical space data, traffic simulations, user generated magnets, and integrated guidance to regulate behavior, with potential to improve VR based professional networking. These insights advance social VR and spatial user interface research and provide practical guidance for VR platform designers and event organizers.

Abstract

One essential function of professional events, such as industry trade shows and academic conferences, is to foster and extend a person's connections to others within the community of their interest. In this paper, we delve into the emerging practice transitioning these events from physical venues to social VR as a new medium. Specifically, we ask: how does the spatial design in social VR affect the attendee's networking behaviors and experiences at these events? To answer this question, we conducted in-situ observations and in-depth interviews with 13 participants. Each of them had attended or hosted at least one real-world professional event taking place in social VR. We identified four elements of VR spatial design that shaped social interactions at these events: area size, which influenced a person's perceived likelihood of encountering others; pathways connecting areas, which guided their planning of the next activity to perform; magnets in areas, which facilitated spontaneous gatherings among people; and conventionality, which affected the assessment of a person's behavior appropriateness. Some of these elements were interpreted differently depending on the role of the participant, i.e., event hosts vs. attendees. We concluded this paper with multiple design implications derived from our findings.

Figures (6)

• Figure 1: The left image shows P1's perspective of the virtual room containing herself and five others. On the right is the view according to the researcher’s perspective, where everyone in this room kept proper distance from each other.
• Figure 2: The left image, provided by the participant, shows one version of the space's layout where attendee's spawn point was adjacent to the auditorium. The right image shows an alternative version that used an extended pathway to connect various activity areas.
• Figure 3: P4 traversed an aisle en route to the other side of the event venue, where P4 encountered someone else and exchanged greetings. Subsequently, P4 noticed another attendee (highlighted in yellow) through the glass walls of the aisle.
• Figure 4: The bonfire caught the attendees' attention and led them to naturally gather in small groups.
• Figure 5: The left image shows that P4 was observed drawing the virtual flower. The right image shows that the flower drawing attracted others to P4's spot, where conversations were initiated.