Thad Starner On Wearables

I’m glad to see that Thad Starner is still alive and kicking (now at Ga Tech).

He’s one of the pioneers of wearable computing, not only doing it before I did, but walking the walk for a quarter century now.  I don’t always agree with Sensei Thad, but he is certainly a giant who walks amongst us.

“We are not worthy!”

He’s got a touring exhibit which presents a bunch of old gadgets (well, as much as a couple of decades “old”) which he uses to tell his version of “How Wearables Worked their Way into the Mainstream“.

Starner isn’t as concerned with fashion as with function, so he’s not talking about wearables in quite the same way I am.  And, being deeply involved with the Google Glass debacle, he tends to tell the story as if Glass is the inevitable Crown of Creation, rather than a hopeless dead end.

---

 

1. Thad Starner. How wearables worked their way into the mainstream. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 13 (4):10-15,  2014.

 

RIP Google Glass

We see today that Google has ended the Google Glass program after nearly two years.  As Stephen Cass noted, Glass was not anywhere to be seen at CES this year, and there weren’t any ‘clones’ either.  Not at all a good sign, and a spectacular fall from grace.

Good riddance.

Perhaps Google actually was paying attention to the blizzard of pushback on this thing.  The also probably discovered that it is harder than they thought to make useful things out of such a small device.  And perhaps some grown ups (and lawyers) pointed out the grievous liability issues of mass distribution of a very dangerous product.

More likely, Google intends to focus on the most promising markets, which will be industrial and medical practice.  These can be legitimate and pro-social uses for this technology, so more power to them if that’s what they are up to.

Overall, the program was strange and very unfortunate.  This was a pseudo-beta, pseudo-release, accompanied by absurd levels of PR and hype.  I don’t think the approach really worked, except to make Glass famous in ways Google doesn’t necessarily want.

But the public release was quite evidently premature, and raised false hopes in their staff and anyone who built products for Glass.  This will leave a sour taste in a lot of people’s mouths.

It’s really not good when your critics and happy and your ardent friends are unhappy with you.

Year End Roundup #3: Wearable Computing, Internet Business Models, Etc

This year I commented on developments in wearable computing.

For one thing, I flamed Google Glass repeatedly, for many reasons, not least their outrageous disregard for road safety.  I really, really ton’t like this technology.

I also snarked at various “stealthware” and related concepts which offer “spy vs spy” solutions to “defeat” surveillance and theft.

Mainly I complained about the lack of good applications for wearable computing. Repeatedly. Other people complained, too.

I did note some good research and creative concepts, as well as some legitimate research I haven’t made up my mind about.

One prediction from 2013 that didn’t come true (at least not obviously so): 2014, Year of Synchronous Remote Haptics.

In a similar vein, I discussed Internet business models, AKA “Arrogant Internet Compainies”, AKA “X is Evil”.

I complained about Google (here and here and so on), Amazon (here and here and so on), Facebook, OKCupid, Pandora, Uber and so on.  The main theme here is (a) I don’t need these services, (b) they collect all  kinds of data without permission, and (c) they deceive us about what they are doing.

I noted intelligent comments by others including Malhotra and Van Alstyne on “the sharing economy” as well as on the “new way of work”.

NPR Cover Poor Design Of Wearables

NPR had a segment on wearable computing, in particular how unsuccessful the designs have been as things “everyone” wants to wear.

In particular, the story notes perception that the designs suffer from skewed design teams. In particular, all male design teams have produced wearables that are unattractive to women. This is probably true of most tech gadgets, but really hurts products that are supposed to be worn as clothing or jewelry.

The story quotes Maddy Maxey to comment that ‘excluding people from a design creates “micro-inequities,” sending the message that a device “isn’t something that you’re meant to have.”‘

I would agree with these points, but I would go farther. The design teams really ought to include people who are not rich, young, techies. Most ‘cool’ tech, including wearables, is so far divorced from most people’s lives that it really does send the message that you are not meant to have it. Does a working mother need her watch to monitor her exercise (as if she gets any)? Does a elder care worker need fancy jewelry to let her know her phone is ringing—when her phone is right there? Does anyone other that a big deal master of the universe need custom printed headphones?  Does a kid working at a fast foot place need a ring to let him buy stuff with a swipe?

The piece also interviewed Isabelle Olsson of Google, who is apparently responsible for Google Glass looking the way it does. She talks about “beauty and comfort”, and diversity in design (i.e., including rich, young women as well as men). But nothing here about safety, privacy, or any consideration of whether the product is good for people.

I still say Google Glass is still evil.

And I’m still waiting for wearables worth wearing.

No Additional Comment Needed

NYT Op Ed, “If a Driver Has an Accident While Wearing Google Glass, Should Google Get Sued?” by Vikas Bahaj.

See my online comment.

Google Glass: Useful for Work?

Google Glass in the NYT yesterday.

The main point Miller makes is that Glass has yet to show promise as a mass consumer device, but might actually be useful in areas where hands free devices have already been explored and show promise.

I note that some of the examples are actually seriously hacked up versions, e.g., Glass devices that do not connect to the general internet, and which do not work at all outside the hospital.

Not only do these applications avoid the deeply troubling issues of unrestricted street use, they also are competing with older, more expensive, and less capable technology.  So this could work pretty well, though Google isn’t going to conquer the universe.

I was concerned about one application discussed, the engine driver of a firefighting unit.  The article implies that he wears the Glasses while driving, to receive routing and other tactical information in real time. Yoiks!  While I’m sure emergency vehicle drivers are better drivers than average, I still don’t think it is a great idea to have them use such a distracting interface while racing to the scene.  Fortunately, the performance of our protective services is closely monitored, so I’m sure we will soon have solid evidence as to the benefits and risks of this use.

Google Glass Distracts Drivers: It’s Not Even Debatable

This is absurd.

On NPR Aarti Shahani asks “Does Google Glass Distract Drivers?“, as if there is any actual debate to be had. Duh. Of course it dos.

The report makes clear that while user’s believe they aren’t impaired (which is, if anything, evidence that they are, in fact, impaired), and Google is evilly lobbying to make sure they can kill as many people as possible with their moneymaking scheme, actual scientists who have studied attention are very clear:  Glass should not be worn while driving.

Look, we know that any multitasking distracts the driver.Period.

Google Glass absolutely should not be worn while driving or operating any dangerous equipment (including jackhammers, firearms, chainsaws, or motor vehicles).

Please, please, please, don’t wear Google Glass while driving.

Personally, I’d recommend not wearing it while interacting with loved ones, but that’s your funeral.

Google:  once again, I challenge you to provide evidence that this product is safe to use. You know–like actual data.

If you need some help to test this, call me.  Please.

For the record, from Google Glass FAQ:

Q: Can I use Glass while driving or bicycling?

A:  It depends on where you are and how you use it.
{…}don’t hurt yourself or others by failing to pay attention to the road.[…}

For goodness sakeGoogle, stop being stupid and evil at the same time.  It is not possible to drive safely using Glass, and you know it very well.

Google Lobbying To Increase Traffic Deaths

Reuters reports that Google is lobbying Illinois and other state legislatures to prevent new laws prohibiting driving with Google Glass.

OK, what happened to “don’t be evil?”  This is not only evil, it is old-fashoned evil.

There is no way in the world that anyone should drive while wearing Glass or anything like it.  Period.

Interestingly, Google hasn’t argued that Glass isn’t distracting, they just say “it’s too soon to judge”.  Rubbish.  We know it is lunacy to drive wearing Glass.

Why has this gigantic, technically savvy company hit me with hundreds of hours of ironclad studies demonstrating how Glass is not distracting or dangerous while driving?

Either they haven’t done the work, or, more likely, the evidence is crystal clear:  this is extremely distracting and dangerous.

(If Google needs someone to test this, tell them to please call me.)

Frankly, I think anyone driving wearing Glass should be ticketed for “aggravated, first-degree stupidity”.  Sadly being stupid while driving isn’t a crime in the US.

Once again, I warn Google: if I am injured by someone wearing Glass, I will sue Google.  Bet on it.

 

 

More on Driving Under Google Glass

Let me clarify my short post yesterday about Google Glass. I made a number of points very tersely, which may or may not be clear. I apologize if there were misunderstandings.

First, the reason you should not drive while wearing Google Glass is the same reason you should not do email or talk on the phone:  distracted driving is far more dangerous than drunk driving.  Just a driving while intoxicated, you probably don’t realize how impaired you are.

Google Glass is extremely distracting even when you aren’t driving.  Imagine strapping a smart phone over one eye, and then driving a car.  I rest my case.

For this reason, I’m very glad that the traffic officer cited the driver.  Regardless of the specific device, driving while distracted is lethally dangerous and illegal in most jurisdictions.

Regarding my comment that “reporters seem to be confused, too”.  The news reports seemed to focus on details of local laws, which may or may not precisely describe Google Glass.  This is basically muddled.  It is idiotic, reckless, and dangerous to drive under Google Glass (DUGG?), and likely to be ticketed.  The reports should have focused on the issue of distraction, not details of devices.

I criticized Google as “clueless about wearables”.  Aside from the boneheaded technical design of Google Glass, Google has exhibited a total lack of interest in usability and safety issues.  Experienced researchers will tell you that several years from now there will be many injuries caused by the eye-flicking interface.  And, obviously, these things are highly distracting and therefore dangerous to use in many contexts, not only driving.  And who knows what else? (hearing problems?  nausea? balance issues?  neck problems?)

Google has not, to my knowledge, publicly acknowledged these questions, let alone addressed them.  Instead, we are treated to marketing pitches about how Google Glass is “built” to enhance “connectedness”, etc..

I suggested that Google Glass is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and Google should get legal advice.

The point here is that Google is selling and promoting a product that is almost certain to lead to injury to users and fatal accidents due to user distraction.  They are content with very generic advice, “be safe” and “follow local laws”.

Sooner or later, there will be a fatal accident in which the driver is wearing Google Glass.  Almost certainly, Google will be sued at some point, for selling a dangerous product that contributed to death and injury.  This will not only cost them money, it will kill Google Glass.

What should Google do?

Well, I would do some high profile, independent, scientific research to document potential hazards of using Google Glass.  And then, I would follow the implications of that research.

At the very least, they need to vigorously instruct users how to be safe. This might well include limits on when and how long to wear it.  I’m sure that the “geniuses” at Google could figure it out if they apply themselves.

Don’t Do This

Yet one more stunning illustration of Google’s cluelessness about wearables.

A woman is raising a ruckus in CA because she was ticketed for driving while wearing Google Glasses.  She professes to be “confused” as to whether this is illegal.  The reporters seem to be confused, too.  Fortunately, the cop wasn’t confused.

Google demonstrates that it is both at sea and wrapped up in its own fantasy world.  “Glass is built to connect you more with the world around you, not distract you from it,” says Google.  Really?  So, I guess that’s OK, then, since Google didn’t “build it” to distract you.

Google better consult some outside legal advice, since this is clearly a huge lawsuit waiting to happen.

Let me be very clear about this.

Please, please please, do not wear Google Glass while driving or operating any dangerous machinery.  Not ever.  You are going to die, or worse, kill someone.