New digital technology tries to find new ways to incorporate itself into daily lives of every individual, which combines new media into a more unified social experience. Project Glass, otherwise known as Google Glass, for example, Google glass is trying to unify across the most (if not all) social media.
By showing the capabilities of user experience people are put into a more perspective and firsthand experience. Doing this we can slowly see an augmented reality, which shown by the end of the video we can see the two couple are connected and sharing what the man sees while his girlfriend is not around.
Google Glass is innovating on personalize experience by incorporating an almost augmented reality into our lives by pushing boundaries and making things seem more immersive and interactive. Project Glass takes on augmented reality by making it more immersive and interactive, but infringes on the user’s privacy and moral rights by not being able to be used for anything obscene or mature content; while trying to incorporate a social media convergence that is appealing to everyone.
Google Glass has been preceded by many kinds of technology that make augmented reality a possibility. An experimental app has been developed of the mobile augmented reality system (MARS) that creates “new flexibility [which] makes possible a new kind of application – one that exploits the user’s surrounding context.” (Hollerer, 779) As digital technology advances, it becomes more powerful and more mobile and accessible that we can start using in our daily lives. In contrast, before having the capabilities of being able have an augmented reality; large prototypes have been made of MARS. The MARS project began in 1996, which tries to create an overlay of information that can be shown to the user and information about the MARS project can be further developed at their site. Although over time, since 1996, as computer technology becomes more better mobile devices have becoming more powerful with ideas how we can incorporate into a social media.
From the video shown above we can see that augmented reality is through a medium, such as a tablet, and further reinforced by individuals taking part that makes augmented reality more immersive and interactive. With the Blue Mars project virtual reality is blending into a platform for augmented reality. Augmented reality distances an individual by virtually creating an “augmented . . . avatar, [which can act as a] remote roommate.” (Sherstyuk) This is showing that augmented reality has been thought about early on and many kinds of programs, apps, and objects, but it slowly creates a distance from the user to reality.
The video above shows how individuals desire “computer vision” which leads to creating a virtual environment. The creation of a virtual environment “we also [begin] to develop means of interacting with that virtual world—of literally reaching in and touching the virtual objects, picking them up, interacting with virtual control panel, etc.” (Fisher, 263) As people become more immerse into the virtual world they begin to forget there is a 3rd party at work that could be infringing on the privacy of the user. Immersing ourselves within the virtual world is easily and often we forget that behind “computer vision” there is also a true reality that we are currently living in.
As privacy becomes a question when we constantly try to incorporate more of “computer vision” we, as a user, often forget there are multiple things that could be infringing on ethical rights. Ethical rights that recently surfaced on Project Glass are the ideas of having a pornography app for the Google Glass. The app quickly got banned because it violated the “policies . . . that Glass does not allow Glassware content that contains nudity, graphic sex acts, or sexually explicit material.” (Kelly) The idea of augmented reality and trying to figure out the proper purpose for Glass is troublesome in figuring out that this innovation should be used for certain things. While what Google wants to do with the idea of Glass, but other companies try to work their way around it and force itself into the newer digital technology. This is problematic for both the company for the product and the user, because nothing is clearly defined in trying to keep the privacy of the user without constantly collecting data. With trying to keep it valuable step towards to the future, things like pornography or sexual content emerges and stands in the way of trying to figure out the correct purpose of the project. The problem with having porn app on the Glass is that it can be loop-hole around as users can create “home movie” type of idea and share it with friends or upload it onto pornography websites. Home films are “the subject’s willingness to talk openly, intimately, and unself-consciously with the filmmaker” (Katz). If the individual consented to being film and for personal use pornography can get by with Google policies on how the product should be used. This would controversial with Google Glass in trying to prevent sexual content on the Google Glass, but by interfering with the user it could be sad with the idea of having the company infringing on the privacy of the user.
The video above sums up Project Glass from Google, as a way to fully integrate our lives and obtain “computer vision” as previously mentioned. We can see that the user within the video becomes more immersed, how the object is integrated, and interacted with to show the potential that Google is trying to go with having “computer vision” and augmented reality into an individual’s life. Digital technology, such a thing as augmented reality needs to be thoroughly tested and approached from all possible perspectives and angles, which allows a better user experience. Augmented reality should provide a better experience without infringing on privacies or having mature content in something that could be the advancement of future technology. With newer digital technology trying to incorporate itself into our lives, we need to slowly look at a wide range of perspectives in hopes that it becomes the way of the future, without causing major problems for both the user and the companies.
Fisher, Scott. “Virtual Interface Environments.” Multimedia: From Wagner to Virtual Reality. New York: Norton, 2002. 257-67. Print.
Hansell, Saul. “Peeking Into Google’s Use of Data.” New York Times 30 July 2008: n. pag. Print.
Hollerer, Tobias, Steven Feiner, Tachio Terauchi, Gus Rashid, and Drexel Hallaway. “Exploring MARS: Developing Indoor and Outdoor User Interfaces to a Mobile Augmented Reality System.” Computers & Graphics (1990): 779-85. PDF.
Katz, John S. “Family Film: Ethical Implications for Consent.” Image Ethics in the Digital Age. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 2003. 327-42. Print.
Kelly, Heather. “Google Bans Porn on Google Glass.” CNN. N.p., 4 June 2013. Web. 9 June 2013.
Sherstyuk, Andrei, Kar-Hai Chu, and Sam Joseph. “Virtual Roommates in Ambient Telepresence Applications.” Caltech. N.p., 2008. Web. 8 June 2013. <ugcs.caltech.edu/~andrei/PDF/roommates.icat_2008.pdf>.