Obviously, if you have seen Virtual Leader, you know I am a strong believer in real-time interfaces for educational simulations. Like computer games, they tap emotions, give users a sense of timing, and provide the opportunity for very rich interactions. Unlike computer games, however, they must facilitate the transfer of skills and perspectives from the artificial environment to a real environment.

I find this concept of "making interfaces part of the learning" the most difficult to convey when working with clients, and I am guessing others here have the same problem. I hope this helps.

The first level question from simulation designers to a subject matter expert is typically:

• What are common problems novices make? What are common problems experts make?

But to that, I have started asking another pair, a second level pair, of questions:

• When is doing the same thing a little harder or a little softer, or a little earlier or a little later, make all the difference between success and failure?

The concept that the subject matter experts fill in for "thing" becomes a critical component of the interface.

Just a few examples I recently heard. If it is...

• "bring one of the two arguing people outside the room to let them cool off" or

• "send flowers" or

• "stop the process to review safety issues" or

• "set up a focus group to get customer feedback" or

• "bring in higher levels of management" or

• "give our bonuses" or

• "go out with the customer to build the relationship" or

• "make an acquisition" or

• "speed up the presentation" or

• "have the security team spend more time surveying the area with the broken window"

...then those options had better be possible through the interface, and not just as a binary option (i.e. press the button), but also as an analog option (i.e. hold down longer for more impact).

This is all part of the new language of interactivity, something I hope will move from archaic today to mainstream within a few years.