Slashdot Mirror
Adjusting to Google Glass May Be Hard
New submitter fluxgate writes "Steve Mann (whom you might know for his having pioneered wearable computing as a grad student at MIT back in the 1990s) writes in IEEE Spectrum magazine about his decades of experience with computerized eyeware. His article warns that Google Glass hasn't been properly engineered to avoid creating disorientating effects and significant eyestrain. While it's hard to imagine that Google has missed something fundamental here, Mann convincingly describes why Google Glass users might experience serious problems. Quoting: 'The very first wearable computer system I put together showed me real-time video on a helmet-mounted display. The camera was situated close to one eye, but it didn’t have quite the same viewpoint. The slight misalignment seemed unimportant at the time, but it produced some strange and unpleasant results. And those troubling effects persisted long after I took the gear off. That’s because my brain had adjusted to an unnatural view, so it took a while to readjust to normal vision. ... Google Glass and several similarly configured systems now in development suffer from another problem I learned about 30 years ago that arises from the basic asymmetry of their designs, in which the wearer views the display through only one eye. These systems all contain lenses that make the display appear to hover in space, farther away than it really is. That’s because the human eye can’t focus on something that’s only a couple of centimeters away, so an optical correction is needed. But what Google and other companies are doing—using fixed-focus lenses to make the display appear farther away—is not good.'"
So, what's his view on POV porn on these devices?
Come on! You know you're getting these just for that!
The other uses are just rationalizations!
A mugger attractant that's more visible than white Apple earphones.
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/tech/innovation/google-glass-privacy-andrew-keen
#ifihadglass ... might be the end of privacy as we knew it. Does anyone doubt this will be used as yet another way for Google to harvest our data?
Reminds me of when I was a kid and I heard about this guy who, as an experiment, wore a pair of glasses that inverted what he saw. After a while (weeks, I think), his brain adjusted by flipping the image upright. When he stopped wearing the glasses, it took some time for his vision to return to normal.
[citation needed]
He's probably right but the fact you look like a penis and people will assume you're recording them and get pissed is reason enough it'll fail even if google wants to rip on their own mobile OS and call it emasculating.
Don't mod if you don't get the reference. Suggest Funny if you do.
They should attach a little handle to the nose bridge so people can easily adjust the fixed focus lenses.
People will still flock to it. Then, others will capitalise on treating the ailments caused by the optional eye-wear.
Reminds me of an expiremt where we wore glasses upside down for 4days, then took them off and normal vision was flipped.
"But what Google and other companies are doing—using fixed-focus lenses to make the display appear farther away—is not good."
Clearly people have put a lot of time and money into this, what's stopping them from compensating for this in some way?
the Nintendo Virtualboy.
You heard it here first.
with You Could Be Mine blasting on my headphones and saying "Jarvis bring up Scarlett Johansson naked....enhance"
So... Steve Mann - a guy who's known for having pioneered the idea of "wearable computing," and had researched extensively in this field, says "They missed some things and it's going to cause some problems."
J. Random Fuckstick (submitter) responds with, "It's hard to imagine that Google has missed something fundamental here."
Do we really need to suck google's dick THAT badly, that we can't possibly criticize their products by pointing out the design flaws that will cause problems?
Jesus christ.
Hard to imagine Google missing something fundamental? No it's not. Sure, Google's business is powered by search, but consider the age of the papers they'd have had to read to know about Steve Mann's work. 30 years? The engineers fooling with Google Glass are younger than the papers in question. :P Which means they suffer from that peculiar brand of cognitive myopia that afflicts their whole generation: if it's not digital, it doesn't exist.
Those papers are no doubt available solely in dead tree form. Or possibly they're available through Excelsior in a crappy scanned form for outrageous fees, which again, these young engineers aren't going to even consider. Who pays for digital information like that? Nobody. (If you're a Google engineer, that's what you think.)
In any case, it wouldn't be the first time a wheel was reinvented badly when it came to electronic gadgets. Between engineering arrogance (nobody could possibly have thought of this brilliant idea before I did) and corporate policy (by all that's holy, do NOT do a patent search on the subject), it happens frequently. Nor is that likely to stop any time soon. Google's stated goal of cataloging all the world's information is a long way from being achieved, especially when there are plenty of forces trying to prevent the digitization of that information.
The word is disorenting, I have been reliably informated. Your misuse of suffixes must be cessated and desistated, or your poetic license will be cancellated. Although "(dis)orientation," "information," "cessation," and "cancellation" are verbs, the corresponding verbs are "(dis)orient," "inform," "cease," and "cancel" -- no "-ate" at the end.
Isn't it?
Sounds like this guy spent thirty years of his life discovering problems, and failing to figure out solutions.
TFA:
The Target Acquisition and Designation Sights, Pilot Night Vision System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_Acquisition_and_Designation_System,_Pilot_Night_Vision_System) for the AH-64 uses a single eye piece. So it seems like this type of thing can and has been done (and this one is pretty cool, it tracks the head movements of the pilot and points the 50 caliber cannon where he/she looks). The single eye piece doesn't seem to cause problems for the pilots that use these systems. Not saying I am interested in Google Glass, but they should have been able to figure out the problem discussed in the TFA.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I doubt it....
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
And those troubling effects persisted long after I took the gear off. That’s because my brain had adjusted to an unnatural view, so it took a while to readjust to normal vision.
Hey, I'd rather have the direct neural link too. But seriously? Whoever manages to come up with a truly viable wearable "augmented reality" system wins. Why the hell would I want to take it off?
Let my brain adjust to having my left higher and further to the left! If I really need to react on a moment's notice to a loss of the HUD image - I'll close one eye.
...writing out millions of checks for 1 dollar and nine cents! I see history may repeat itself.
So what's supposed to happen when my eye is already malfunctioning and i need glasses anyway? Can i adjust the focal point? How does it compensate for any cylindrical adjustments i might need? Does this work when it projects through my glasses? As an already hipster-before-it-was-hip, wearing glasses because I need to see sharp, i've never seen any of these questions answered... Will I feel disabled because I can't see what's projected by google glasses?
Quack damn you!
Technology isn't for the dummies. This kind of thing won't be difficult for the tech savvy and intelligent to adapt to. Sorry, maybe I'm just a little irate with all the lowest common denominator compromises lately. I just wish there were more intelligent folks so we could fully utilize technology without having to dumb it down for the LCDs.
Judging by the PR page (third image from bottom), the GG can have your conventional lenses attached. But it looks like you can't wear regular glasses and Glass, so you'd need to get your Glass customised with your lenses. [Obligatory "Yo dawg..." taken as read.]
However, in some of the early demos, the display itself can be removed from its own frame and attached to any suitable pair of glasses, with the display sitting just in front of your normal lens. Ie, the included frame is just for people who don't wear glasses. So we may be in luck, we might be able to buy the display without the expensive custom frame. But it's interesting/creepy that in all current PR images (I mean all of them) none of the Glass users wear glasses.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
It's another massive failure of Google (viz Wave)
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
This http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0301145/ is a great documentary about Steve Mann and his early, but advanced for the time, eyeglasses which already did a lot of what Google has tried to prototype. But the documentary has disappeared. It is not for sale, no longer showing at festivals, and not available to download or torrent. Has anyone kept a copy of this very interesting documentary?
The camera was situated close to one eye, but it didnâ(TM)t have quite the same viewpoint.
But I don't think that Glass is meant to be an AR system. It's a display in the corner of your vision, so it can't overlay things on the center of your vision (as was made clear in the latest 'preview' video).
It's this misunderstanding that might kill Glass, people have unrealistic expectations.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wonder how different the Glass experience will be for those of us who have atypical vision. I can see fine, but I focus with one eye at a time. I had surgery on both eyes for strabismus as a child. Now you can't tell that my eyes are slightly out of alignment unless you get close and are very observant, or I get tired and they start going off in different directions on their own :)
Anyway, this has caused issues for me when trying to use binoculars (I just end up using them one-eyed like a spyglass). If I had the Glass interface on my non-dominant eye it's quite possible I could walk around and not even notice the interface until I make the effort to bring it into focus.
Makes me wish I had the 1500 to become an early adopter and report on it.
...he sure has a sticky "memory buffer":
From the current article:
"The impact and fall injured my leg and also broke my wearable computing system, which normally overwrites its memory buffers and doesn’t permanently record images. But as a result of the damage, it retained pictures of the car’s license plate and driver, who was later identified and arrested thanks to this record of the incident."
From his blog, in relation to an incident at McDonalds (http://eyetap.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/unanswered-letter-to-mcdonalds-head-of.html)
"With all the video surveillance cameras that you have in your establishment you should be able to do better than merely "witness statements" as the only evidence to stand against the solid evidence that your employees generated in my wearable computing system by damaging it and thus preventing it from overwriting its circular buffer"
[citation provided]
George Stratton did an experiment on perceptual adaptation in the 1980's.
This differs completely from the adaptation of expectation that takes place when lens of propaganda driven public education is promoted, a priori, then erased over time by continual exposure to reality. You don't just wake up one day and figure out that the American Dream should be referred to as the Grand Illusion. It takes much longer to figure out that your government, and other 'fiduciaries', might not be up to the task of reflecting your expectations. Your intellectual habits suffer from confirmation bias .