Hopefully the unit won't be too wrapped up in patents so that a competing design that improves upon any failings can be made. Sadly I have my doubts though.
Canadian cyborg says Google Glass design is cracked
Wearable computing pioneer and self-proclaimed "cyborg" Steve Mann says it's fine that Google is popularizing wearable technology with its Project Glass, but he's concerned that the online giant may be making serious mistakes with its design. "I have mixed feelings about the latest developments," Mann writes in the March issue …
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 07:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Projecting a display is old hat, the original HUD in aircraft, smart helmets for fighter pilots, even some cars have displays on the windscreen.
However it would be long before legislation bans them for use in cars, working with machinery etc. they will become a distraction and could lead to accidents.
-
Monday 4th March 2013 10:49 GMT Psyx
"Projecting a display is old hat, the original HUD in aircraft, smart helmets for fighter pilots, even some cars have displays on the windscreen."
That's a drastic over-simplification. A bit like saying "space travel is old hat, because we've been making biplanes for twenty years now".
There's a big difference between being able to parse an image two feet from your eye or a few lines overlaying normal vision and having full colour video less than an inch from your eyeball.
"However it would be long before legislation bans them for use in cars, working with machinery etc. they will become a distraction and could lead to accidents."
Erm... It's already be illegal to have images projected into the area of the windscreen where it is illegal to have anything blocking vision. It's also already illegal to have a TV screen for the driver to look at. And it's already illegal to drive without care and attention (by being distracted)). No new legislation required.
-
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 05:44 GMT Ole Juul
"computer-mediated reality"
That just covers way too wide a spectrum. In fact it easily covers everything from absurd hilarity, to tragic misunderstanding. An example of the latter would be proponents of marketing data. In any case, I can't help but think that so much of the natural world would be missed, that it would be a situation of one step forward and two steps back.
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 06:21 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: The difference between Steve Mann's glasses and Googles version is ...
Oh, I don't know. Wearing glasses frames with no lenses and a tiny brick on one side looks a bit strange to me. As to practicality, and it pains me to say this, it's in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, with the polarized shades in the pocket, thanks.
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 07:48 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: The difference between Steve Mann's glasses and Googles version is ...
Oh, Google's still make the wearer look strange. If you don't think that, I guess you're a candidate for wearing one of those idiotic things.
The reason that Steve Mann looks an order of magnitude dorkier than the Google guy is more the unnatural forced smile of someone who never smiles, the yellow teeth and unshaven face, the balding head and the apparent lack of a shirt when the picture was taken. If he thinks Google is damaging the wearable computing "movement", then he needs to take a look at himself in the mirror first for his suitability as its poster child!
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 13:47 GMT Lyndsay Williams
Re: The difference between Steve Mann's glasses and Googles version is ...
I worry about the social aspect of "Peeping Tom " aspect of Google Glass and other devices. It would be interesting to see the female point of view of guys wearing these devices. I did some work years ago with wearable cameras (Microsoft's SenseCam), but we always used good manners,switched off if required, and did NOT record audio as intrusive. Re Glass - Is the wearer engaged in a conversation with you or online? I did have a few hours conversation with a guy with head mounted recording specs and found it very uncomfortable. The social aspects of people wearing Bluetooth headsets and talking to themselves (or not) have been covered and parodied. A less attention seeking alternative is a glanceable display mounted around the neck, facing vertically, like a nurse's fob watches? I am testing one now.
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 18:29 GMT Infernoz
Re: The difference between Steve Mann's glasses and Googles version is ...
Attacking the Steve Mann's image is shallow; granted, his image has some poor esthetics; however he does make very valid points, especially about how nasty it is to make optical systems work well with Human eyes, and both images look like prototypes, including Googles! I wear Ti glasses to correct eye defects, including Astigmatism, so can literally see serious problems with both examples!
Anyhow ...., a lot more work will be required on eye mounted displays and cameras, for technology, ergonomics, and esthetic appearance, before they become practical.
I doubt side image projection will be usable unless the screen is at a fixed angle and position to the eye(s); this requires a fixed screen, the offset one Google Glasses have will be tiring and jarring to use, and a fixed orientation screen and camera will be jarring due to varying eye orientation, and made worse by body movement. It will be nonsense to have to move your head rather than move your eyes to change camera orientation (even tablets are more usable than this), and mono vision seems dubious for eye displays.
Possible ideas:
* Use a full glasses design (possibly in Sun Glasses format), with a moveable camera hidden in each used lens or a central pod, a thin, high resolution, and directional light emitting screen layer in each used lens, and pupil tracking to move camera orientation, and to display images appropriately.
* Use prescription, contact lens with embedded light emitting screens and possibly cameras, with safe wireless power and data transfer from (and maybe to) frames close to the lenses; this removes the need to adjust the image for pupil orientation, unless for orientation based image enhancements.
Any camera should preferable be hidden and have maybe have a visual indication it is enabled/disabled, otherwise it will encourage violence like Steve Mann experienced.
I think Google have really underestimated how difficult usable glasses displays will be, especially with cameras, and would be wise to at least discuss this with Steve Mann, rather than just ignore him, because it may speed up their work.
-
Monday 4th March 2013 14:36 GMT James Micallef
Re: The difference between Steve Mann's glasses and Googles version is ...
"Any camera should preferable be hidden and have maybe have a visual indication it is enabled/disabled, otherwise it will encourage violence like Steve Mann experienced"
"Hey, that guy looks creepy" or "I wonder if that guy is recording me" are NOT an excuse for violence.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Sunday 3rd March 2013 13:06 GMT JaitcH
@DougS: The difference between Steve Mann's glasses and Googles version is ...
not to do with the guys face, shaven or not, dressed or not. You seem to be ignoring the point of the pictures - the optics.
Look at the position of the U of T glasses is in front of the eye, which I saw at a Toronto demonstration. There position over the eye requires additional head movement to compensate for this. Other electronic optics don't suffer from this impediment.
The Google Glasses, I understand, project the image on to the eye - far more practical as there is no contact. If having a single lens on your face causes you so much angst, simply add a neutral lens to the other side.
I trialled some optical display glasses a couple of years ago and the over-sized temples (the parts that go over your ears) were so unwieldy that almost every tester found them uncomfortable due to the size. Google appears to have reduced the electronics considerably.
Likely you are upset that Cupertino isn't matching MS, Google, Oakley, etc. but no doubt they will become adaptable to your electronics.
-
Sunday 3rd March 2013 20:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: @DougS: The difference between Steve Mann's glasses and Googles version is ...
How can Apple "match" something which isn't a product yet from anyone? Personally I find all glasses uncomfortable to wear for long, no matter how light, so there's no way I'd be a customer for this no matter who makes it unless it provides capabilities so revolutionary I'd be willing to endure constant discomfort in exchange. So far nothing I've heard discussed as its use cases sounds likely to change my mind, though I'm sure whenever there's a real product that isn't just for uber geeks like the Google Glasses will be for the first couple generations I'll give it a try for a few minutes and see what it's like.
Given the surge in distracted driving accidents caused by people on cell phones while driving, I hate to imagine exactly how much carnage would be caused by drivers wearing something that could let them read their email in one eye while "driving" with the other. Sure, we'll make laws against wearing this while driving, and I'm sure they'll be every bit as effective as the laws against texting while driving. As far as I can tell, the main thing that changed since that law went into effect where I live is that people now hold their phone down low where the cops can't see it instead of in front of them, which surely makes things worse.
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 15:43 GMT Adair
Re: The difference between Steve Mann's glasses and Googles version is ...
Mmm... Maybe the difference is that one is about someone doing generic practical research for something that will actually work and be useful for a whole range of things all sorts of people may want to do; while the other is interested in making money. Or, maybe that's just too simple and cynical an interpretation.
-
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 08:06 GMT MrT
Both eyes...
...together in bifocal or varifocal. In Google Glass it's just one eye that experiences the projected image so that's where the strain comes in. Eyes can adjust to most things but they normally see the same sort of image at the same time.
Having a skilled professionals optometrist sort out the difference between contact lenses and specs means the user will experience less disruption switching between them, but I doubt many GG users will have them prescribed and fitted by an optician.
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 08:11 GMT B-D
Re: Each eye to focus on a different plane?
Nope, bifocals have the bottom quarter of the normal distance lens cut for reading in both lenses.
You look through the top 3/4s of the lens for normal viewing and then look down a bit for your magnified reading part.
It isn't a case of the lens lens being set for distance and the right for viewing, that would really mess things up, you'd end up looking like Major Asshole from Mel Brooks' SPACEBALLS.
As for whomever decided to downvote my previous post, I was of course referring to the issue of a good idea causing problems, a la Opti-Grab...
D'oh! icon 'cos he looks like he's suffering from eye strain.
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 12:08 GMT dajames
Re: Each eye to focus on a different plane?
It isn't a case of the lens lens being set for distance and the right for viewing, that would really mess things up ...
Apparently not. A friend who has had laser eye surgery tells me that he now has one eye adjusted for middle-distance vision and the other for reading, and that (apart from some loss of depth perception) the combination adequately covers all situations.
I also know someone whose contact lens prescription works in the same way. No evidence of things being really messed up at all.
-
-
-
Sunday 3rd March 2013 00:10 GMT Don Jefe
Re: Each eye to focus on a different plane?
A few years ago I was forced to wear only one contact for about three weeks. It took about a week to adjust. What I did discover is that while it is doable and the headaches go away after a while, neither eye is able to focus as sharply as they can if completely corrected or uncorrected. Something in your brain sort of averages it out but like most averages, it is noticeably suboptimal.
-
Monday 4th March 2013 10:52 GMT Psyx
Re: Each eye to focus on a different plane?
"neither eye is able to focus as sharply as they can if completely corrected or uncorrected. "
...Which is kinda why we have binocular vision, ultimately.
Personally, I'm not really seeing a massive disadvantage in life of having to get one's phone out in order to look at the Internet, or even augmented reality. I'm all ears, but I've yet to hear a really good reason for recreational or casual use of these things.
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 17:20 GMT JassMan
Re: That must smart...
Most likely they have tried as much as possible to make it different enough that their patent claims don't get thrown out for prior art. Not everyone has Apple's startegy of wiating for prior art then lodging a patent anyway.
Mine's the one without an iPhone in the pocket.
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 08:29 GMT jake
Or, maybe ...
""Perhaps it's because no one else working on this sort of thing has spent years walking around with one eye that's a camera. Or maybe this is just another example of not-invented-here syndrome.""
... just maybe, the gookid in charge of the project never even knew Mann existed. The gootards aren't exactly all that brilliant when it comes to the real world, and that other actual humans exist. The concept that anybody outside the googleplex can have "new, modern" ideas is completely foreign to them. They literally think they are all that, and then some. Worse than facebook, even. Poor little rich kids. I feel sorry for them.
-
Sunday 3rd March 2013 01:52 GMT Chris_Maresca
Re: Or, maybe ...
Living here in Silicon Valley and interacting quite frequently with Googlers, I would say that this is spot on. It's like they don't even bother using their own search software to see if anyone else has already BTDT...
Google is a cult, at least for the people working there, quite a few of whom will (inadvertently?) refer to it as 'home'...
-
Sunday 3rd March 2013 06:44 GMT jake
Re: Or, maybe ...
"Google is a cult, at least for the people working there"
Forget about the acolytes ... what about the id10t's who worship it from afar? The entire concept is so very, very wrong ... Not just on the surface, but all the way to the core.
I shun them. And I recommend everybody else does, too. I don't need or want yet another Jewish/Christian/Catholic/Islam/Mormon/Scientology/Apple cult cocking up people's lives for generations to come. And, I suspect, neither does anyone capable of thinking for themselves.
Oh. That's what my problem is. Critical thinking. My bad.
Carry on, sheeple.
-
-
Wednesday 6th March 2013 06:16 GMT jake
@Psyx (was: Re: Or, maybe ...)
I don't have a "group" (outside friends & family). I march to the beat of my own drummer. I'm not special, I'm simply a self-aware human who sees no need to look to any other human for advice on living my life ... although, I'll admit the Wife has been known to rebuke me when it comes to the care & feeding of her side of the family ;-)
YMMV. If it works for you, enjoy your bliss.
-
-
-
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 11:21 GMT OrsonX
'optical tricks allow the wearer to view the display while focusing at any distance"
Is this possible?
I think these glasses will only work when the image (of whatever) just floats above whatever object I'm looking at, at whatever distance.
This would seem like a big ask optically.
I also do wonder what information I'd actually want displayed? Perhaps an audio version would be more useful? It would certainly by infinitely simpler to implement.
As for Steve Mann, I sure hope he's patented all the good stuff!
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 12:03 GMT Elmer Phud
Seeing as my eyesight is so buggered that laser correction would still leave me wearing reading glasses and for driving - I don't expect to be an early adopter.
(very short sighted in one eye --- long sighted in the other -- laser surgery consultant didn't even try to go for a sale and agreed it wasn't worth it)
-
-
Monday 4th March 2013 12:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Looks like@TheOther Hobbes
"Google Glass comes with a free facial airbrushing feature."
Egad, sir! You're onto something with that. Extend the glasses to a full face transparent AMOLED visor, which works out the viewers angle, and gives you any face you choose. Obviously George Clooney loses something if he's wearing a full face proectrive visor, but even so all the tech is out there now, just not joined together. More importantly in two year's time maybe we'll have a paintable AMOLED material that can be applied directly onto skin. Google Glass will by then be Google Contact Lens, and you can then be George Clooney or the Elephant Man merely by thinking it, with no visor at all.
Think of the possibilities! Conjure up in your mind the image of a baboon's back end, project that as your face, and you have a new and amusing means of insulting other road users whilst driving. Put on a rotting zombie face for doorstep sellers. Or Medusa for electoral canvassers and other political types. Face advertising, face signalling, the first truly blank face....
I bet you can't wait for the future now.
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 13:50 GMT ratfox
Like he's the only expert
He should have more respect for this Thad Starner guy leading the project at Google, with reasonable credentials of his own…
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 17:07 GMT Fink-Nottle
Och Aye, Officer ...
There was a recent case of an Aberdeen man who was put on a sex offenders list for taking photos of women walking past his flat. (Admittedly he took 70000 photos, and they were for his sexual gratification ... )
The interesting part is, in court the man admitted breach of the peace by taking the shots without the subjects' permission. If that is the case, simply looking out your window while wearing Google Glass would be an offence in Aberdeen.
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 19:57 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Och Aye, Officer ...
If true....
If he was inside his flat or on private land, and did no physical harm to the women, breach of the peace was nonsense, and this was probably an abuse of common law, made far worse by putting him on the sex offenders list, which is part of statutory (political) instrument (not common law).
The man was probably given poor law advice, the fool should have challenged the lawfulness of his arrest, and turned the accusation back on the obviously abusive 'precious' women.
-
Monday 4th March 2013 10:19 GMT Ralph B
Re: Och Aye, Officer ...
Surprisingly, this case does appear to fall well within the standards for breach of the peace prosecution. I suspect this will doom Google Glasses usage in the UK as effectively as the Road Traffic law has buggered Segway.
-
-
-
Saturday 2nd March 2013 22:57 GMT jubtastic1
Couple of thoughts, make that three.
It's too early, they look stupid because we don't yet have the tech to completly hide all the gubbins, 5-10 years later this could have been launched without people objecting to them simply because of the design.
It's Google, they would give these away for free if they could because ultimately every wearer of these things becomes another pair of eyes and ears pouring data into the mainframe. Google isn't evil, they're just obsessed with quantifying reality, they're not going to feel they're finished* until they're inside your head, recording your thoughts while looking out of the holes.
Would we trust anyone with a real time feed of our lives? I say no, that this tech isn't going to go mainstream until they have a secure connection to a back end on our own 'server' and all the data requests from the server run through some sort of onion network to maintain privacy.
* Machines don't actually have feelings, the tasks state will be recorded as 'complete' when a complex series of cascading boolean statements all return true.
-
Monday 4th March 2013 16:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Such lenses should be focussed at infinity so you look through the lens to bring it into focus, not directly at it.
Also, you can't damage your eyes by using them as designed, i.e. to focus on things, even if those things are at different focus distances. Eye "strain" is tiredness, not damage.
Ask an Apache pilot about focussing through a monacle whilst also focussing on the horizon and flying a helicopter.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Monday 4th March 2013 22:54 GMT Charles Manning
Emersive vs augmented VR
There are basically two type of VR: augmented and immersive.
Immersive VR takes away your normal eye-to-real-world optical stream and replaces it with a video stream.
Augmented VR is more of a heads-up display that paints images on top of normal sight.
In the photos Mann is clearly wearing immersive while the Googleboy is wearing augmented (since you can see his real eyes).
Augmented VR suffers registration issues (ie. it is challenging to sync up the projected overlay with natural sight) but it does not interrupt normal sight.
Mann's immersive VR does away with registration issues, but shifts your view.
The brain is very adaptive. People with glasses manage to cope fine with changes when they take glasses off (or put them on). My glasses have both magnification and realignment (ie combination of lenses and prisms) and I can happily take my glasses off or put them on while walking/driving etc with no disorientation.
I am sure Mann is making more of this than he needs to and is defending what he feels is his turf.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
