> First, I feel that was a reasonable starting point. Does anyone know > of more advanced demos online? Has Steve Mann ever put up details of > his current system? If you dig enough around the wearcomp.org and eyetap.org sites you can find a fair number of details on Mann's work, or in his book on advanced imaging that describes the system and software in a fair bit of detail. His stuff is fairly similar to the demos you posted, except I don't think Mann has gesture recognition, at least not that I've seen. He used (possibled still does) a Twiddler for a while. He's done facial recognition with a remote server (similar to the OCR example) and he's done the AR information overlays, although not using accelerometers as much as image processing techniques. He's done the collaborative environment where someone else can see what he sees and feedback into his display. > If people were interested in using a low-tech > wearable computer, they'd be doing it already. Smartphones are supplanting the PDA business, iPod is doing great, the Danger Hip Top is doing well, etc. People are adapting tech, just hot HMDs yet. I remember when cell phones were considered weird, seriously. > The WEAVY demos at > least show what looks like a useful device with an intuitive user > interface. I would expect most non-geeks would opt for an HMD and > camera interface over a Twiddler2. It depends, a less general function device in your pocket is probably more acceptable than a HMD, just from a social standpoint. Mann has said that the biggest problem he's had is when people can see the HMD, it makes them uncomfortable, thus the covert eyetap in the big sunglasses, the less notable MicroOptical eyeglasses, etc. Mann has also talked about using the Twiddler under the table during meetings without people knowing it. With gesture recognition the person across the table would think you're trying to "crush their head" with that gesture. It might be amusing, but probably not as socially acceptable. Same reason voice recognition isn't getting more attention, people feel dumb talking to a computer (even when it works). > Second, people are already walking around with bluetooth headsets: > http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/buyersguides/mobilephones/accessories/bluetoothheadsets/ Yeah, I'm actually impressed that has been happening, but I've read articles about people thinking they're "geeks" and I've heard that in person too. Attitudes are changing, slowly. Also, people have gotten used to cell phones, and with laws appearing against using anything other than a headset while driving this particular tech is being adopted by the business community more rapidly than might otherwise happen. There isn't any such preexisting social context for forcing function for HMDs yet. > I still question whether any sort of head-mounted tech is a good > idea, but that's a personal decision: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040219075606.htm It's a business decision too. Sega pulled the dev. and release of their HMD for the Genesis system because the lawyers freaked about possible lawsuits. Because cell phones are a big business you'll see a study to counter every negative finding for a while (even if they're biased studies). If the evidence mounts over time against having EM fields near your brain all day then we'll see Nokia and all the rest in lawsuits similar to what the tabacco industry went through. > I'm no lawyer. This is not legal advice. I have heard from > patent attorneys that all inventors must be listed on a patent > for it to be valid. Legally, yes. However, I can tell you from personal, first hand experience that isn't always the way it plays out. > What the US law says and what the results the US legal system > produces are often two different things. Good point! _______________________________________________ Wear-Hard mailing listhttp://www.haven.org/mailman/listinfo/wear-hard
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail