Augmented Reality is the overlapping of digital information and physical environment. Sci-Fi has often portrayed A.R. as interactive floating transparent computer screens projected into the air, or perhaps the most absolute example: standing inside an entirely computer generated world.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-10
True A.R. will come evetually I think, but to get there, the mouse will have to go first. A screen-in-the-air would be a pain to use if you had to stand there trying to interact with the data with a trackball in your hand instead of reaching out and 'grabbing' the data.
I think that the Wii & iPhone are A.R., but just primitive A.R. The way the Wii allows you to swing a golf club in the game, but have the feeling of a golf club in your hands by having something to hold, and move in direct correlation with the virtual world is a form of A.R. imo. Things have a long way to go, but it's all exciting!
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
> it seems to me that integration of graphics is vital for
> something to be really called AR
Indeed. We need glasses or contact lenses with integrated displays, preferably with depth of field, lest our eyes will go way worse way faster than they do now.
Then we need head/eye tracking. And I mean seriously good tracking. I've been inside the VR cube at KTH in Sweden, and with the tracker it had it felt like my eyes were on rubber bands; when I moved my head the display was updated some 100-400 milliseconds later. This causes nausea in most people. We need to be talking microseconds instead of milliseconds here. Especially if the display is on contact lenses, because of the saccadic eye movements.
It would also be nice to have some kind of tracking of external objects, making computer graphics overlays possible, but I guess that's even farther down the road.
Member since:2005-07-06
Integrating most comments in this thread, I conclude that:
-True AR involves both "augmented input" and "augmented output" to achieve an augmented interactivity.
-Augmented input could include motion sensing, touch sensing, true voice recognition (understanding of natural speech, think about Star Trek computers), eye tracking and other alternatives.
-Augmented output could include an improved desktop metaphor (3D or not), information superimposed to visual reality (glasses or contact lenses with integrated displays, but I think glasses are way more cool :>), speech and other alternatives.
It looks like current state of AR is more advanced in the input area (motion and touch at least), but as Kroc points out nicely, software (mainly OS) has to evolve a lot to embrace this kind of interactivity and use it for increased productivity. And as said by Yamin, efficiency of keyboards is difficult to beat in this context, especially in places where other people are working.
In order to truly develop AR, some technological advances have to be made, and a true benefit for users has to derive from it. I think AR will eventually develop, but how fast, only time will tell.
Member since:
2006-06-02
Having more natural/direct controllers is one thing, but it seems to me that integration of graphics is vital for something to be really called AR, i.e. augmenting a view on the real world with computer graphics. With the Wii and iPhone everything you see is still on a separate screen. It's cool but it doesn't fit the definition of 'augmented reality' in my opinion.