Google Glass code hints at spatial gestures(thenextweb.com)
thenextweb.com
Google Glass code hints at spatial gestures
http://thenextweb.com/google/2013/04/22/google-glass-code-hints-at-spatial-gestures-including-two-finger-browser-zoom-and-winking-to-take-a-photo/?fromcat=mobile
5 comments
With the current tech there is no way Google can put in computer-vision based two-finger gesture into Glass. There isn't enough processing power in the cell phone linked to the Glass. And there isn't enough space in the Glass for a custom computer vision chip. So it is likely that you are right, and it is merely a two-finger touchpad gesture.
Great, as if people walking around talking to "no one" wasn't bad enough, now people will be randomly grabbing at air and twitching their eyes. How are we supposed to separate the crazy people from the sane?! And the real question here, who's going to be the first person to accidentally pinch their friends nose when trying to zoom? How will we recover from such embarrassment? Is it in the warranty?!
On the other hand this does look interesting, I wonder if you could use this to "select" things in the world like "click/point to" a restaurant sign to learn more.
On the other hand this does look interesting, I wonder if you could use this to "select" things in the world like "click/point to" a restaurant sign to learn more.
Great, whenever anyone uses this new technology they'll be warped into a bizarro Charlie Chaplin style universe where everyone is a buffoonish clutz.
> Great, as if people walking around talking to "no one" wasn't bad enough, now people will be randomly grabbing at air and twitching their eyes. How are we supposed to separate the crazy people from the sane?!
Nothing really new, people giving the appearance of talking to themselves happen all the time because of cell phones and Bluetooth headsets, and as for winking or gesturing, it's been happening to the human race ever since we were able to walk on two legs.
I still remember when walking in the streets with a walkman on your ears made you look crazy.
Nothing really new, people giving the appearance of talking to themselves happen all the time because of cell phones and Bluetooth headsets, and as for winking or gesturing, it's been happening to the human race ever since we were able to walk on two legs.
I still remember when walking in the streets with a walkman on your ears made you look crazy.
> Glass will be made by a third party but feature support from Google
I hope in the future it will be made only by 3rd parties. Say, you buy nicely looking designer shades and they have google glass. Right now it's ugly, vulgar, creepy and has a high douchebaggery factor, I wonder how they want to convince people to walk around with this thing on their faces.
I hope in the future it will be made only by 3rd parties. Say, you buy nicely looking designer shades and they have google glass. Right now it's ugly, vulgar, creepy and has a high douchebaggery factor, I wonder how they want to convince people to walk around with this thing on their faces.
It wasn't so long ago that you were a douche if you walked around in public talking into a cell phone.
Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person.
Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist had some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.)
Then again, there was a time when you were a douche if you rode around on a Segway... and that period never ended.
So I guess this could go either way.
Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person.
Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist had some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.)
Then again, there was a time when you were a douche if you rode around on a Segway... and that period never ended.
So I guess this could go either way.
Unlike these other things, owning Glass is an "all-in" proposition. You can put the cell phone away. You can park the car. Hell, you can get off the Segway even.
Glass? It is on your face. It is part of your identity. Having met a few people wearing it, it is hard to imagine a more in-your-face device to own. It's one step shy of a tattoo on your forehead. When you meet someone wearing these things while they are not commonplace, the first thing you will notice when you meet them is Glass. If the perception is that Glass = douche, guess what, your first impression everywhere you go is going to be "douche" before you even get to introduce yourself.
You can take it off, sure, but if people are wearing them around their neck all the time they will eventually start just leaving them at home.
It's a huge, huge problem. I wish Google luck but also at the same time worry they are going to set back wearables for some time by pushing a Segway-like device onto the public before it's ready.
Glass? It is on your face. It is part of your identity. Having met a few people wearing it, it is hard to imagine a more in-your-face device to own. It's one step shy of a tattoo on your forehead. When you meet someone wearing these things while they are not commonplace, the first thing you will notice when you meet them is Glass. If the perception is that Glass = douche, guess what, your first impression everywhere you go is going to be "douche" before you even get to introduce yourself.
You can take it off, sure, but if people are wearing them around their neck all the time they will eventually start just leaving them at home.
It's a huge, huge problem. I wish Google luck but also at the same time worry they are going to set back wearables for some time by pushing a Segway-like device onto the public before it's ready.
How is putting your cellphone/Segway away different than putting your Glass away?
When would you know if the public is ready for wearables without releasing a product?
If Google sells hundred of thousands of these, the public is ready.
When would you know if the public is ready for wearables without releasing a product?
If Google sells hundred of thousands of these, the public is ready.
If you put your cell phone away, it goes in your pocket. If you put your Segway away, it goes in the garage (or something?) It's still useful there since you can access it when you need it.
If you put Glass away, you basically invalidate the purpose of Glass itself, which is to be an always-available HUD for your life. (At least as far as I understand it.)
And yes, I agree the only way to know if the public is ready is to release a product. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it but I'm pretty bearish on them being able to pull it off. My gut is that there is a product that exists between "cell phone" and "heads up display you wear on your face" that would have reduced the risk of colossal failure. (Similar to how there is probably a product between "E-Mail" and "Google Wave" that would have worked better too.) There are just too many things that have to go right that have nothing to do with technical prowess. If it was just about algorithms and data I'd be cheering them on, but it's not, it's mostly about stupid fuzzy human being stuff, and Google has always struggled with that. (Though they're learning quickly!)
If I was going to make a prediction I think Glass will flop. The only way I could see it not flopping is if they get something out there quickly that genuinely looks cool and doesn't have a huge pricetag. (Not because price will inhibit purchasing it, but because if it is high priced it will immediately be known as showing off, ie douchey, to own one.)
I think the next step towards pervasive always-available computing is going to be wristband/watch type stuff with flexible displays which provides a nice step forward ubiquitous-computing wise, leaves room for creative design that can spawn a array of fashions, will be affordable, and will not require forging of new social norms on the way. (I'm 99% sure this is where Apple is headed.) And lets face it, a slick-designed slap bracelet that you can post to Facebook on is going to be fucking cool, whereas a cyborg-like eye-piece is at the very least going to get mixed reviews.
If you put Glass away, you basically invalidate the purpose of Glass itself, which is to be an always-available HUD for your life. (At least as far as I understand it.)
And yes, I agree the only way to know if the public is ready is to release a product. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it but I'm pretty bearish on them being able to pull it off. My gut is that there is a product that exists between "cell phone" and "heads up display you wear on your face" that would have reduced the risk of colossal failure. (Similar to how there is probably a product between "E-Mail" and "Google Wave" that would have worked better too.) There are just too many things that have to go right that have nothing to do with technical prowess. If it was just about algorithms and data I'd be cheering them on, but it's not, it's mostly about stupid fuzzy human being stuff, and Google has always struggled with that. (Though they're learning quickly!)
If I was going to make a prediction I think Glass will flop. The only way I could see it not flopping is if they get something out there quickly that genuinely looks cool and doesn't have a huge pricetag. (Not because price will inhibit purchasing it, but because if it is high priced it will immediately be known as showing off, ie douchey, to own one.)
I think the next step towards pervasive always-available computing is going to be wristband/watch type stuff with flexible displays which provides a nice step forward ubiquitous-computing wise, leaves room for creative design that can spawn a array of fashions, will be affordable, and will not require forging of new social norms on the way. (I'm 99% sure this is where Apple is headed.) And lets face it, a slick-designed slap bracelet that you can post to Facebook on is going to be fucking cool, whereas a cyborg-like eye-piece is at the very least going to get mixed reviews.
I actually do not have any idea if Glass will flop or not.
Personally, I'd only wear it indoors for the meantime. Maybe when I'm climbing or biking too.
I'm part of a Glass User Study since last year. Google is very careful to not make it a distraction device but rather a device to assist you by having information available with just a tap or voice command. This is the main reason that the API is only a Mirror API, just a notifications service.
What's compelling is it being a camera. Glass wearers take way more photos and videos.
I believe that will be the main use-case. Smartphones need several actions to take a picture. With Glass, two voice commands or just push a button.
I'm giving Glass the benefit of the doubt.
When people used to ride horses, I bet those who drove the first cars looked weird. Riding horses were the social norm and not riding oversized machines.
Personally, I'd only wear it indoors for the meantime. Maybe when I'm climbing or biking too.
I'm part of a Glass User Study since last year. Google is very careful to not make it a distraction device but rather a device to assist you by having information available with just a tap or voice command. This is the main reason that the API is only a Mirror API, just a notifications service.
What's compelling is it being a camera. Glass wearers take way more photos and videos.
I believe that will be the main use-case. Smartphones need several actions to take a picture. With Glass, two voice commands or just push a button.
I'm giving Glass the benefit of the doubt.
When people used to ride horses, I bet those who drove the first cars looked weird. Riding horses were the social norm and not riding oversized machines.
"How is putting your cellphone/Segway away different than putting your Glass away?"
I don't need a segway to focus in on anything more than three inches in front of my face.
I don't need a segway to focus in on anything more than three inches in front of my face.
> It wasn't so long ago that you were a douche if you walked around in public talking into a cell phone.
You still are. It's still considered rude to subject everyone to your cell phone call. These people walk up to the register while on a call, block the sidewalk while distracted, and otherwise are clearly not actually with us in this universe.
http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/07/12/breaking-the-rules...
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2438977
http://formingthethread.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/cell-phone-...
> Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person.
Yep, the 'showing off' part is still douche.
> Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist was some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.)
This one too. Once watches stopped being a functional item (the advent of phones), they became douche status badges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/fashion/watches-are-redisc...
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/150719282/in-cell-era-timepiec...
You still are. It's still considered rude to subject everyone to your cell phone call. These people walk up to the register while on a call, block the sidewalk while distracted, and otherwise are clearly not actually with us in this universe.
http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/07/12/breaking-the-rules...
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2438977
http://formingthethread.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/cell-phone-...
> Or if you drove around showing off your crazy automobile contraption instead of riding a horse like a normal person.
Yep, the 'showing off' part is still douche.
> Or if you wore a timepiece strapped to your wrist, instead of on a chain in your pocket like a proper gentleman. (And later, if the watch on your wrist was some kind of ugly LCD thing, instead of a handsome analog face.)
This one too. Once watches stopped being a functional item (the advent of phones), they became douche status badges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/fashion/watches-are-redisc...
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/150719282/in-cell-era-timepiec...
> Once watches stopped being a functional item (the advent of phones), they became douche status badges
A watch to a man is like a purse to a woman - an accessory (and/or jewellery).
A watch to a man is like a purse to a woman - an accessory (and/or jewellery).
Fair enough. What I meant is that a licensing model would be cool because it would offer the same tech in endless fashion applications, instead of forcing to wear a wire structure on your head. For the moment I'm afraid that in the beginning it will be what it is, and after some time there will possibly be some special designer editions for a bazillion dollars.
Man, so much hate for this device that the poster probably have never seen or used in person.
A douchebag will be a douchebag with or without Glass.
But in my book, douchebags are people who call other people douchebags for no good reason.
A douchebag will be a douchebag with or without Glass.
But in my book, douchebags are people who call other people douchebags for no good reason.
Oh but these people do have a good reason, the person is wearing something they don't approve of.
did I offend you, or am I not allowed to dislike how an electronic device looks like?
No. But it's different when you resort to name-calling just because of something a person wears or what a person looks like.
Call people douchebag for their actions.
Call people douchebag for their actions.
This isn't how fashion, or people in general, work. There is a reason they call it a "fashion statement." It's an action that doesn't require actual action.
Basically Glass requires that Google release a product that is fashionable out of the gate. There really isn't going to be second chances with something like this. Google isn't exactly known for being a company that has good intuitive fashion sense. I'm sure they're A/B testing the damn colors for gods sake.
Basically Glass requires that Google release a product that is fashionable out of the gate. There really isn't going to be second chances with something like this. Google isn't exactly known for being a company that has good intuitive fashion sense. I'm sure they're A/B testing the damn colors for gods sake.
Personally, I don't view Google Glass a fashion statement.
It's a tool for me. Like my computer or camera. Same with my phone.
It's a tool for me. Like my computer or camera. Same with my phone.
You don't get to decide how people view something you wear on your face, they do. And I predict anyone non-technical (and many who are) will view it based upon how it makes the wearer look, not by what it can do. It remains to be seen if Glass is going to be considered cool. The blatant use of beautiful people wearing it doing fun and exciting things leads me to believe they understand they have a uphill battle on this front and basically need to convince the public that it is cool. This is a bad sign. Similar to how a kid when told by their parents to not do something subsequently do it, things our corporate masters make a blatant effort to tell us are cool usually are viewed as lame. The iPhone became cool on its own and was sold by a geek wearing a black turtleneck on a stage talking about a revolutionary communication device, not by a blonde celebrity going skydiving.
Ask yourself: if you shut Glass off and just wear it will it change the way people perceive it? (Right or wrong.) If not, then it doesn't really matter what it does, its success or failure will be based upon how it makes people feel when wearing it.
Ask yourself: if you shut Glass off and just wear it will it change the way people perceive it? (Right or wrong.) If not, then it doesn't really matter what it does, its success or failure will be based upon how it makes people feel when wearing it.
I don't get to decide how people view my actual glasses either, but that doesn't mean I'm going to walk around blind. The usefulness of a thing as a tool is incidental to its value as a fashion statement.
If Glass is actually revolutionary in the usefulness department I suspect we'll see the same sort of behavior we see with smartphones - many people owning and using them and a small number of people complaining about them alienating everyone from society. If it turns out to be just a gimmick, I agree it probably won't catch on.
Though there are some pretty odd ideas about mainstream fashion in this thread, too. See the above post by someone who thinks that watches and expensive cars are unfashionable. I trust HN for a lot of things, but views on fashion (and on what's likely to become fashionable) isn't one of them.
If Glass is actually revolutionary in the usefulness department I suspect we'll see the same sort of behavior we see with smartphones - many people owning and using them and a small number of people complaining about them alienating everyone from society. If it turns out to be just a gimmick, I agree it probably won't catch on.
Though there are some pretty odd ideas about mainstream fashion in this thread, too. See the above post by someone who thinks that watches and expensive cars are unfashionable. I trust HN for a lot of things, but views on fashion (and on what's likely to become fashionable) isn't one of them.
Fortunately you can buy glasses that look good and that people like. If you couldn't, we'd all be wearing contacts.
There is also a huge difference between something that lets you see and something that affords you the convenience of not having to reach into your pocket to read Twitter.
The last device that made you look smug, started off extremely expensive with the goal of getting cheaper with volume when the public inevitably scooped them up, and provided a convenience viewed as overt laziness because a cheaper more widely acceptable alternative existed was called the Segway. Glass already checks off two out of three (it's expensive, and is for people "too lazy" to take out their phone.) It remains to be seen if it hits the trifecta of also just plain looking doofy. I've only seen it on nerds and celebrities so it's hard to guess just how far on the doofus totem pole your average Glass wearer is going to be knocked.
There is also a huge difference between something that lets you see and something that affords you the convenience of not having to reach into your pocket to read Twitter.
The last device that made you look smug, started off extremely expensive with the goal of getting cheaper with volume when the public inevitably scooped them up, and provided a convenience viewed as overt laziness because a cheaper more widely acceptable alternative existed was called the Segway. Glass already checks off two out of three (it's expensive, and is for people "too lazy" to take out their phone.) It remains to be seen if it hits the trifecta of also just plain looking doofy. I've only seen it on nerds and celebrities so it's hard to guess just how far on the doofus totem pole your average Glass wearer is going to be knocked.
If you couldn't, we'd all be wearing contacts.
I seriously doubt the accuracy of that judgment.
Likewise with the rest of the post. 'smug' and 'lazy' are nice, quick labels but none of it actually serves to differentiate the Segway from any other product. (I mean, 'started off extremely expensive with the goal of getting cheaper with volume'? Really?) The Segway just didn't fit a niche. There was no reason to buy one, so they stayed rare and weird. Which is also why they remain fairly popular as a tourist attraction in quite a few places.
The idea that Segways exude a 'douchebag' field (along with an irrational hatred of mall cops) seems to be either highly regional or simply confined to the Internet. Just based on my own anecdotal experience, of course ;)
I seriously doubt the accuracy of that judgment.
Likewise with the rest of the post. 'smug' and 'lazy' are nice, quick labels but none of it actually serves to differentiate the Segway from any other product. (I mean, 'started off extremely expensive with the goal of getting cheaper with volume'? Really?) The Segway just didn't fit a niche. There was no reason to buy one, so they stayed rare and weird. Which is also why they remain fairly popular as a tourist attraction in quite a few places.
The idea that Segways exude a 'douchebag' field (along with an irrational hatred of mall cops) seems to be either highly regional or simply confined to the Internet. Just based on my own anecdotal experience, of course ;)
The exact same argument may or may not be leveled against Glass. "I already have a phone, why would I spend $1500 on something that just does what my phone does? Is the guy wearing Glass so lazy he spent $1500 so he doesn't have to take out his phone to check Facebook?"
I was one of the people out there defending the Segway's absurd price point as a temporary condition since it seemed "obvious" that everyone would be riding around NYC on Segways in a few years. Segways would be incredibly useful in cities even today for getting around local neighborhoods, expanding the distance you can feasibly travel on a outing on foot. But you look dumb on them, they cause awkward interactions, you sit yourself on a tier above "normal people just walking around", and you are viewed as lazy relative to bikers. All of these aspects have clear analogs to Glass wearing. It makes no sense because people in cars do not look lazy relative to pedestrians. People are funny when it comes to self-image, regardless of utility.
I was one of the people out there defending the Segway's absurd price point as a temporary condition since it seemed "obvious" that everyone would be riding around NYC on Segways in a few years. Segways would be incredibly useful in cities even today for getting around local neighborhoods, expanding the distance you can feasibly travel on a outing on foot. But you look dumb on them, they cause awkward interactions, you sit yourself on a tier above "normal people just walking around", and you are viewed as lazy relative to bikers. All of these aspects have clear analogs to Glass wearing. It makes no sense because people in cars do not look lazy relative to pedestrians. People are funny when it comes to self-image, regardless of utility.
I did mention that two posts above. If Glass is just "cellphones, but on your face" I agree that it probably won't catch on. Of course, smartphones are already useful for a lot of things besides checking Facebook. There's a reason they were so popular among businessmen even before the iPhone pushed them into the mainstream.
The real question is whether or not 'the masses' (and especially teenagers) will pick up on the things, though. Smartphones followed in the cell phone's wake. So 'Facebook' might actually be a selling point, unless Facebook hatred picks up first (an extreme dislike for Facebook being yet another thing that essentially no one outside the techie-sphere shares).
The real question is whether or not 'the masses' (and especially teenagers) will pick up on the things, though. Smartphones followed in the cell phone's wake. So 'Facebook' might actually be a selling point, unless Facebook hatred picks up first (an extreme dislike for Facebook being yet another thing that essentially no one outside the techie-sphere shares).
> The blatant use of beautiful people wearing it doing fun and exciting things leads me to believe they understand they have a uphill battle on this front and basically need to convince the public that it is cool. This is a bad sign.
If cigarette companies managed to use marketing and product placement to make smoking be cool and fashionable, I bet it can be used to make Glass look cool. Not sure if they are doing the right campaign, but they are on the right track.
If cigarette companies managed to use marketing and product placement to make smoking be cool and fashionable, I bet it can be used to make Glass look cool. Not sure if they are doing the right campaign, but they are on the right track.
> Call people douchebag for their actions.
Like choosing to wear a stupid-looking $1,500 distraction-generator?
Like choosing to wear a stupid-looking $1,500 distraction-generator?
Have you used it? How are you sure it's a distraction-generator?
Shut up. We're all going to buy one. We'll hate ourselves, sure, and we may only wear it to user group meetings, but you can bet your ass we're all going to blow $300 on one.
Wearing it in public is one thing. Wearing it constantly at home (baby's first steps, anyone?) is another matter.
Wearing it in public is one thing. Wearing it constantly at home (baby's first steps, anyone?) is another matter.
Who is this "we"? I'll probably buy wearables at some time in the future, but I have no interest in glasses or anything else that's primarily used for video capture.
[deleted]
I find "BROWSER_TWO_FINGER_ZOOM" the most interesting - was just thinking the other day of what a Google Glass + Leap Motion mashup would look like.
1. http://ed.ted.com/lessons/rapid-prototyping-google-glass-tom...