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.'"
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]
They should attach a little handle to the nose bridge so people can easily adjust the fixed focus lenses.
So, what's his view on POV porn on these devices?
I'd say... augmented? You now, with an overlay of arrows and directions and labels and what not, how else?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
the Nintendo Virtualboy.
You heard it here first.
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.
Well, it would have shown up i the testing; which they have done a lot of.
Maybe it's better to say:
I find it hard to believe a company that has tested this device wouldn't have had this problem reported to them?
Not that any company is perfect, nor that spending more means it won't be flawed, but It's not a small problem to have detected.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's a pretty bid assertion. How does it feel to be old enough where you need to keep up excuses about young people so you don't have to think about your age?
Going into wearable computing, especially glass, and not knowing of Steve Mann would be like looking into fast food burgers and not stumbling upon McDonalds*
it all old dead tree stuff? really?
http://eyetap.org/publications/index.html
As if the guy who has been wearing computer glasses, he built, wouldn't use digital storage.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In what testing? The testing conducted exclusively by Google, and a hand-picked bunch of people who lined up eagerly to suck their cock and pay $1500 for the privilege of an Alpha-quality device?
Yeah, I'm sure those people are likely to have: 1) Used it out and around long enough to have actually identified problems with it; 2) the balls to tell the emperor he has no clothes.
They lined up to PAY GOOGLE for the privilege of being testers.
That's pretty much a guarantee you're going to get your dick sucked in any review.
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 don't know, some of us are very sensitive to these sorts of things, while others not so much.
People still think I'm making stuff up when I say "shakey cam movies make me vomit", or Portal 2 for that matter. Most people have absolutely no problems, a few feel mildly queasy. But some of us get physically ill. Shakey cam movies continue, and don't announce themselves as such until AFTER they've taken your money, and some video game companies still restrict FOV options or don't provide ways of disabling "head bob", and other disorienting effects. They simply don't believe there's a problem, and their testers aren't picking up (perhaps being desensitized to it from long hours anyway).
I don't think they missed anything "fundamental", but it would not surprise me at all if they missed something significant but outside their test group.
You obviously haven't read the other slashdot articles on him; he figured out the solutions years ago; that's why this issue with Google Glass is odd; if they'd read all his research, they should have been aware of the problems and the fixes.
The OP is simply stating what many of us have experienced, a young work force can innovate better, because they aren't handicapped by experience, but the younger workforces lack of experience handicaps their wisdom and knowledge.
I have no doubt Google will come up with an amazing and neat product, I also have no doubt that they will overlook some problems that will be very serious for some people in the wider world. The experience to know that and to reach out to experts in the field comes with wisdom and age. The guy with 30 years experience in the stuff has already pointed out some that Google could be very aware of but have no intention of fixing (because they have a young workforce that can handle the adjustment) and might find out later that some 60 year old lady fell down the stairs because she wore Google glass for a week and it totally fucked up her depth perception.
We shouldn't treat Google like a god, understanding the brain, eyes and how things interact in the mind is tough and we just don't have the knowledge base here to predict all the outcomes. As someone who's had serious medical problems with my eyes (and almost ended up blind) I can tell you that Mann's concerns are valid, its very easy to mess up your perception with tragic consequences. I can remember walking up to a set of stairs and having to stop because I couldn't tell where they started. It's a very unpleasant experience.
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 doesn't matter. We have TWO articles on Slashdot in the last couple hours about people re-engineering the wheel and ignoring everything that came before. All these hotshot idiots with their attempts to get into orbit "their own way" are no different than Google Glass doing it "their own way" and ignoring all prior art, prior study, and prior expertise.
I've met Steve Mann. He's misunderstood, horribly geeky and incredibly brilliant. I was shocked that Google hadn't consulted with him first before they decided to chunk together their own wearable HUD. Mann has been doing this for longer than Google has existed. He is a walking laboratory and he knows, from experience, what the fuck he is talking about.
I'm sure Von Braun is laughing from his grave at these space jockeys, saying "You did WHAT?" Similarly Mann is shaking his head at Google.
I don't know, some of us are very sensitive to these sorts of things, while others not so much.
People still think I'm making stuff up when I say "shakey cam movies make me vomit", or Portal 2 for that matter. Most people have absolutely no problems, a few feel mildly queasy. But some of us get physically ill. Shakey cam movies continue, and don't announce themselves as such until AFTER they've taken your money, and some video game companies still restrict FOV options or don't provide ways of disabling "head bob", and other disorienting effects. They simply don't believe there's a problem, and their testers aren't picking up (perhaps being desensitized to it from long hours anyway).
I don't think they missed anything "fundamental", but it would not surprise me at all if they missed something significant but outside their test group.
My sympathies for your condition (and I mean that), but you now KNOW about this flaw, so they'll be no "taking" of your money as if you didn't have a clue. That being said, If you still hand it to them, I doubt my sympathy will remain intact. You of all people should know by now that companies do not make products that cater to 100% of humans. This unfortunately, is likely going to be one of them. But you probably knew that simply by looking at it from day one, knowing your particular quirks.
Mann has written papers and I'm sure they must have read them. He isn't the only expert in the world, so presumably they hired some other people who know about this stuff.
Bottom line is that so far no-one has reported having issues with glass, but we won't really know until lots of people have them on for extended periods.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC