Virtual reality

We started the week with a meeting at tuesday with Malin and Daniel about our new approach in order to get some feedback. It is always good to get a second view of the concepts and try to highlight the problems that might occur with our new approach.  They liked our new approach but some questions was asked about how the news should be captured and we believe that in the future it will be more common to capture moving images in 360 degrees view than it is today. Today that procedure is kind of expensive but in the future it might be like a hardware that you plug in to your phone in order to be able to do that. So we don't believe that will be a problem.

We also discussed the mail that we got from Anna Careborg about creating a virtual reality reportage for SvD and it might be hard to get that done before our presentation in december since a lot of work has to be done by then in this course and other courses as well. But we said that we might do it until february.

The question that we published in our previous blogpost have we been trying to answer. And about the validation of the news we think that the validation of the news will be done by the community, both by rating and by reporting inappropriate material. We don't think that we, as a company, should validate the material since we are a crowdsourcing service, and we will get a huge amount of news scopes from people and if we need to validate all of them before they get published it will not be manageable for us. We only validate the news that get reported by the community and by doing that we save ourselves a lot of work, just by believing in the community and their potential, kind of like youtube does today. About the editing of the clips is kind of the same. We want to give that responsibility to the users. We receives already edited virtual reality scopes and then distribute it.

We have also solved a few unclear questions about our concepts such as our view of the service's position on the market compared to other competitive companies. We see ourself in the middle of youtube and big news companies such as CNN, BBC etc. We are kind of like youtube in the sense that we are crowdsourced but we only focus on news which makes us like CNN. By combining those attributes of our service we create a whole new market, news from the people for the people.

Another unclear question that we tried to answer was about the interaction with the service. When we presented the new approach to Malin and Daniel it felt like Daniel thought that we would make it possible to walk around in the virtual reality and that would be the interaction. The reason why we don't want the users to be able to walk around in the VR is because there is no real natural way to make that interaction possible, except if you have access to a unlimited huge room. The interaction we have decided to go for is like you can chose to who you want to listen to and things like that. Imagine being able to listen to a interview with the person that you feel is interesting instead of listening to everyone that the reporter has interviewed. We are thinking of a scene where there are people around you and you can pick who’s story you will listen to. The way you interact is still under discussion but we imagine the VR goggles will contain some sort of buttons on it that you can interact with, but maybe eyetracking will be better (http://www.getfove.com/)?

We have also decided that the service won’t be subscription based, it will be totally free. This because we want as many users as possible in order to get as many stories/news--scopes as possible.

One of the inspiration that we got was from Malin that showed us this:

http://www.medievarlden.se/nyheter/2015/11/detta-ar-ett-reportage-man-kan-vara-inne-i-i-flera-timmar

It is pretty much how we imagine the result to look like.

• This blogpost ends with a question. What do you think about our validation solution? The validation of the news will be done by the community, both by rating and by reporting inappropriate material. And we, as a company, only validated the content that was reported.