Preparing for mini presentation

Wearable Technology and Concerts; do audiences need it?

Imagine the current concerts or music festivals that you have been to, and think about how your interaction is with the artist on stage. You go there, dance for a little, or a lot depending on how well your stamina treats you, leave, get disappointed with the sets and go home.

Some people even have pre-drinking and drugging sessions to make the concerts or raves more exciting for them. They only have passive light accessories to wave around and their voices to get themselves noticed in the crowd. Products like Xyloband and the Tomorrow land bracelet emerged to solve these problems of feedback and interactivity in crowds but remain passive for the users. Companies seem to go to wearable technology to solve these problems. But the question is, do audiences really need these devices to obtain a better party experience?

Firstly, let's understand the words Wearable Technology. Wearable is an article of clothing or device where you could put on or wear and could take off at will. If you couldn't take it of at will, that would be Implant Technology. Technology on the other hand involves any invention with any devices  developed by scientific knowledge which includes analog and digital devices like umbrellas, plastic bottles, computers, paper and etcetera.

Why is it utopian for some but dystopian for some? There are many movies leaning heavily on either side of how wearable technology would either be accepted or rejected.  There are some who support Cyborgism and there are those who are against it.

But what makes Wearable Tech so special? Wearable Tech is a part of 'new' media and is categorized under Ubiquitous computing. As an illustration, I would be comparing Virtual Reality and Ubiquitous computing. The characteristics of Virtual Reality draws the user into the virtual world, very much like flight simulators pilots go through during training. However, Ubi computing are like ambient media where the virtual world is brought out into the real world, blending into our environment. For example, holograms,  multi-touch glass displays at boutiques and Google Glass. They are meant to serve in our world and therefore is quite the opposite of VR. (Lister, 2000) They are designed in such a way that the medium disappears, allowing the users to focus more on their content.

But how does this categorize and relate to Wearable Technology in concerts?  Companies that are designing these products for mass media consumption are disguising these technologies as watches, bracelets and bands which we may wear daily.

Why do they disguise them in such a way? Besides practical reasons, wearable technology are designed to be invisible technologies. Audiences crave Immediacy from technology and is gaining popularity over the years. Immediacy is when the users are unaware of the medium or technology. Wearable technology isn't exactly a new invention, it has been remediated from the early pocket watches and such. For example, you might be looking at a grassy scenery through a window, but rarely you would be able to notice the window itself. Therefore, the content would be given more focus rather than its medium, the window.

The limits for wearable technology are endless. To have a clearer picture, this tech could be divided into two different functions which are 'Utility' or 'Entertainment'. Some wearable tech do try to merge both functions as well. For example, if you were to use the Wearable Tech as a utility in concerts, it could act as a ticket, or a pass for you to enter the concerts like the Tomorrowland Facebook bracelets  are used by raves like Tomorrowland. There are some debates on the usefulness of these bracelets which act as a Facebook friend request medium where users had to place there watches sides by side and press the button on their watches simultaneously and wait awhile for the Facebook friend request to be sent to their paired accounts. Innovative as the idea may be, it deemed hassling to the users as they would rather take out their mobile phones to execute the action. Tokyoflash has launched an innovative watch, the Kisai Intoxicated watch for US$99 which acts as a breathalyzer to check the alcoholic levels of attendees. However, there are some concerns about its accuracy. Which brings me to my next point. Due to its sudden boom in demand by users, and being not gone through years of maturing and ample research and development, there are concerns and doubts of wearable media effecting health and mobility, although ironically these devices are invented to monitor and aid these factors.

As for Wearable Technology functioning as entertainment devices, artists like Coldplay had used Xyloband. These bands connect to a central computer

Repressive and Emancipitory use of these tech.

-UPDATE HERE

Imagine a world of future concert experiences. First off, you put on your wearable tech device on your wrist which acts like an ID, NFC entry ticket, and alcohol/drug monitor and enter the interactive party hall. Underaged users and users with high alcoholic levels are not permitted and left outside the hall. Everybody is wearing the device as well. This would be a world without mobile phones, where you wouldn't need to record your party experience or take pictures. All you needed was your band which connects to the responsive rotatable cameras all around the concert cite and your computer at home. The collective data from all your bands could send data to the stage screens and DJ which would change the mood and music of the concert depending on the majority. And the best of all, the band works as a GPS tracker so that you could always, find your friends in the crowd.

Technologies and the advancement of men are measured in ages.

There are the stone age, the bronze age, the iron age, the steam age, the industrial age, atomic age, television age, space age, and currently, the Information age.

Where does that leave Wearable Technology? The age of Calm Technology would be the future for Wearable technology where this would be the age where technology would be all around us, invisible and immediate. 

Here comes the age of calm technology!

Tokyo flash

http://www.news.com.au/technology/japanese-smartwatch-includes-its-own-breathalyser-and-drunk-test-game/story-e6frfrnr-1226666649214

THE CALM TECHNOLOGY

http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/acmfuture2endnote.htm

glass age

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12OSBJwogFc

reference cyborgism

ASG 2: Literature Review: Opinions on theories by other experts

Post no. 17

To narrow down the scope of research, the essay will be focusing on wearable technology's nature of being classified as a form Ubiquitous Computing and how it affects the sociotechnical system in entertainment events with it's immediacy.

To narrow it down even further, Ubi computing's nature will be strategically categorized with Maris's (2000) categorization of Emancipitory and Repressive media.

I am going to revisit the term 'Sociotechnical systems' because the title of the essay would be discussing about the system which involves a mix of technology, people and the environment. Example; how does wearable technology and their thrive and demand for invisibility affect the people, environment and technology around them?

This theory of Immediacy will be placed in a context for public uses in large spaces rather than analyzing the majority wearable devices which are now built for personal use. Analyzing from a broader perspective would involve the environmental factor, one of the three factors existing in the Sociotechnical system.

The three books related to this post were previously analysed in posts 8,9 and 10 and this post's aim is to gather different expert opinions on the concepts presented by those theorists.

Ubiquitous computing

1. Mühlhäuser(2008) confirms that in 1988, Mark Weiser coined the term Ubiquitous computing. It this book, the author confirms Lister's (2000) statement about Ubi computing, which states, "VR brings the world into the computer, but Ubi Computing brings the computer to the world." (p.1) This is a very obvious binary opposite of these technologies which were addressed by both theorists.

"Embodied Virtuality" would be the synonym of Ubiquitous Computing states Weiser(1999). (p.2)
Passionate about devices being embedded in our environment, Weiser's theories and goals for Ubiquitous computing is gaining more and more attention with new media, with the rise of Wearable Technology.
(The brief history of Ubiquitous Computing is analysed from Mühlhäuser's (2008) book, available in the reference) 

2. Weiser (1996) speaks of THE AGE CALM TECHNOLOGY, another term/synonym of Ubiquitous Computing which speaks of the future of computing.

It states, "It is when technology recedes into the background of our lives." Weiser (1996). The future of Wearable Technology would be a part of the age of calm technology, something which I could conclude in the essay.
(Available on his website in reference)


3. Kalle Lyytinen and Youngjin Yoo from the Department of Computer Science of The University of Aarhus have produced a clear chart of the differences between 4 types of computing.
What Lister (2003) has mentioned in Post 9 is further deconstructed in this chart.

In Lister's (2003) text from his book New Media, he mentioned Ubiquitous computing being miniaturized and embedded in our physical lives.

 

However, Lyytinen, Yoo (2002) referred the same statement towards MOBILE computing and stated that, "As a result, the computer becomes a taken-for-granted, ever-present device that expands our capabilities to inscribe, remember, communicate, and reason independently of the device’s location. This can happen either by reducing the size of the computing devices and/or providing access to computing capacity over a broadband network throughlightweight devices."(p.64)

The comparison between the two texts seem to emphasize on the level of mobility of ubi computing and mobile devices. There seems to be a slight confusion with Lister's text as it may be too general.

What Lyytinen and Yoo (2002) mentioned about Pervasive computing being intelligent computers which recognise their environments and adjust their functions too them. Ubi computing on the other hand involves pervasive computing with a high level of mobility.

The text has also mentioned the term SocioTechnical system (interlinked systems of a mix of people, technology and environment) which was mentioned in the proposal and how Ubi computing affects that system.

In this article, they have also confirmed the author's thought about Ubi Computing being at an immature, and new state.

References

Mühlhäuser, M. and Gurevych, I. (2008). Handbook of research on ubiquitous computing technology for real time enterprises. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. (2002). Issues and Challenges in Ubiquitous Computing. 1st ed. [ebook] Denmark: DAIMI, pp.62-65. Available at: http://wiki.daimi.au.dk/OT-intern/_files/cacm-ubicomp.pdf [Accessed 7 Dec. 2014].

Weiser, M. (1996). Ubiquitous Computing. [online] Ubiq. Available at: http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/UbiHome.html [Accessed 8 Dec. 2014].

________________________________________________________________________________

Hypermediacy, Immediacy, and Remediation

Many texts and articles interrelate these three differences of media together. However, I would only be focusing of the Immediacy of mediums. Comparisons will be made with Hypermediacy and Remediation, but it will be very brief. Remediation does not fit into the goals in the essay, therefore it would not be mentioned.

1. MIT press

MIT press (no date)"The desire for immediacy is apparent in the increasing popularity of the digital compositing of film and in Hollywood’s interest in replacing stunt men and eventually even actors with computer animations. And it is apparent in the triumph of the graphical user interface (GUI) for personal computers."(p. 23)


As the author(myself) had mention numerously in her posts about how Immediacy and the transparency of these mediums are in demand, the MIT Press article has then confirmed it with this statement. This article may have no date and author, but if the article is published by this very renowned site, there has to be some legitimacy to it. I would also like to hear the opinions from MIT experts who published this article. Placed in the context of Wearable Technology, many inventions thrive to make the mediums as invisible as possible by disguising them as daily wearable clothing or accessories like glasses, ear rings, or rings.

As mentioned in the article, the users are no longer aware of the medium, and confronts the content straight away. (p. 24)


2. The Time Barrow is a professional blog run by a Ph.D holder in Technical Communication and Rhetoric from Texas Tech University and had been an adjunct faculty member of the Technical Communication (formerly Multimedia Writing and Technical Communication) program at Arizona State University, instructing in both classroom and online settings, since 2003.

In his blog post, he analyses each term from Bolter's Remediation book, done in this blog in post no.8.

He talks about how the term 'Transparency Immediacy' should be taken apart and analysed from both different perspectives of both the developers and the users.
Transparency would correlate to intuitiveness and Immediacy, a demand of invisible mediums. These keywords are important for deconstruction and understanding the term better.

However in Bolter's book, he merges both the terms together but defines Immediacy as a 'transparent' medium'. So it would be quite repetitive if someone were to use transparency immediacy. It would be transparent transparency immediacy.


3. HARVARD.edu
This review on Bolter's Remediation (1999) book  published by Harvard by Sara Marie agrees with the The Time Barrow (expert no. 2) about Immediacy's meaning of the transparency of mediums and how it is more focused on its content rather than its mode of representation. Personally, could the term 'Immediacy' derive itself from 'Immediate information'?
However, in this article in paragraph two of her review, she declares Immediacy as Transparency as if they were the same meaning and word.
Bolter(1999) merely referred transparency as a trait of mediums, not a replaceable identity for immediacy.
The Time Barrow sees the two words as completely different identities which separate themselves from one another.
I could conclude that Immediacy is definitely not just about transparency in general, but it only correlates if the transparency of mediums are in question.

References

Barrow, T. (2010). Immediacy, Hypermediacy, and Remediation. [Blog] Time Barrow : Contemplating Digital Orality. Available at: http://blog.timebarrow.com/2010/08/immediacy-hypermediacy-remediation/ [Accessed 8 Dec. 2014].

Bolter, J. and Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Immediacy, Hypermediacy adn Remediation. (n.d.). 1st ed. [ebook] Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, p.23. Available at: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262522793_sch_0001.pdf [Accessed 8 Dec. 2014].

Lister, M. (2003). New media. 1st ed. London: Routledge.

Marie Watson, S. (2014). Immediacy and Hypermediacy. [online] Harvard. Available at: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic148217.files/WatsonRemediation_review.htm [Accessed 7 Dec. 2014].

Marris, P. and Thornham, S. (2000). Media studies. 1st ed. New York: New York University Press.

ASG 2: Research Ethics 2

Post no. 16

This is a second post on research ethics.

These are research ethic details of the Essay.

4 part assessment

ERE Ethics Assessment: Minimal Ethical Issues (No work with individuals/organisations)

Use of Subjects: No

Type of data collected: n/a (all information/statistics/interviews will be extracted from books and legitimate journals online)

Type of subject and nature of activity: n/a (professionals are accessible online and the nature of activity is Legal)

ASG 2: Essay Structure

Post no. 15

Point 1 is very very detailed. I realised that Wearble Technology is a very new tech, so the introduction to this topic needs to be detailed and precise before any arguments can be made.

Intro:  (1 paragraph)
- History of communication and how/when we started to be so be intrigued by technology. Inventions expand - Frankenstein Syndrome. We want tech to be more seamless, immersive. We wouldn't want to see the medium. We want it more mobile too. Hence, the idea of Wearable Technology.

Breakdown Ubi Computing
- Wearable Tech is a type of Ubiquitous Computing.
Define Nature of Ubi Computing. Mark Weiser(1988)

- Public/private & high/low culture & local/public. How does it transform the entertainment industry? How can it effect the sociotechnical system? (the people/technology/environment)

- How can it be used simultaneously, at a large scale? What are the factors that need to be taken care of?

1.  What is wearable tech? (1/2 paragraphs)

Further Breakdown
- Wearable : something, an article of clothing or device where you could put on  or wear and could take off. Why is it utopian for some but dystopian for some.

- Differences between wearable Media and Wearable Technology.

- Media is the main means of mass communication, a subcategory under Technology.

-Technology itself is the application of scientific knowledge for practical   purposes, especially in industry.

- Technology is classified into 5 classes. Technology as objects, technology as
knowledge, technology as activities, technology as a process, and technology as a socio technical
system (interactive media).

- Wearable Computers and Wearable Technology.

-Technology may not be correlated to computers. They are different entities. A computer is just an electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.
Examples of wearable computers: Google glass / Samsung Galaxy Gear

- Wearable tech is not new. History of wearable media will be stated. Radical and incremental innovations.
The first Wearable Tech: The Pocket Watch
First Wearable Computer by Claude Shannon and Edward O. Thorp was invented to predict where the ball would land on the Russian roulette wheel.

- Wearable Technology is classified into two: Utility & Entertainment

- Health, Military, Infotainment, Fashion, Fitness and Wellness

         
2. Large crowd usage: Wearable technology (4 paras)

- Older examples of crowd participation that runs simultaneously LIVE. (voting with remote controls etc.)

- Entertainment: Analyze Xyloband, Tomorrowland's Facebook Bracelet. (Repressive & Emancipitory Use)

-Factors to argue: Emancipitory and Repressive use of media

- Why is feedback and interactivity important.

- Law of conformity. People would want to be a part of a larger social context.

- Argue with Immediacy

- Address Cyborgism briefly.


3. Arguments section. (2 para)

Is it really necessary? What is its future in the entertainment industry?

Will it be practical, safe, healthy? Will it be compulsory for entertainment? Utopian?

Current standing of Wearable Technology in the Timeline of Technology.

Wearable media is in which part of the timeline of evolution of technology?
THE AGE OF CALM TECHNOLOGY.

Is it a necessary evolution which will bring us to a better understanding of inventing greater and more intelligent tech? Is it just a transitional stage to advanced implant technology?


4. Conclude: (1 para)

Extensions of man. Humans will be their own superheroes. Future looks bright for wearable technology in entertainment.

ASG 2: Refinement of Proposal

Post no.14

I did the best I could to refine it, made it simpler to understand and more direct. I fixed a couple of things like the title, the reference, the timeline, research question and the introduction. I changed wearable media to wearable technology in the title because if I said wearable media and social/entertainment in the same sentence, it would be repetitive and redundant.

I changed the word 'environment' to 'events' as well to give it a smaller scope. Environments would mean public, and public wearable tech is a whole other area which involves many other fields.

The future of wearable technology for large crowds in social entertainment events.

A research proposal by

TseYing ONG

for

Interactive Media Design Pathway

Level 6 Enquiry / Report / Essay (6FTC1075)

Assignment 1 of 3

The School of Creative Arts

Faculty of Science, Technology and Creative Arts

University of Hertfordshire, UK in partnership with
The One Academy, Malaysia.

Introduction:

The presence of mobile phones in crowd conditions like concerts or raves disrupt audiences' experiences and limits immersion. Several solutions have been discussed to solve this problem and one of them would be the use of wearable technology. This tech is a rising form of future ubiquitous computing technology which could give audiences a more rewarding experience from the invisibility it's medium, discussed by Bolter's theory of Immediacy (1999). This trait of invisible mediums found in wearable technology is highly demanded by audiences.

Research question:

Define and deconstruct wearable technology.

How can wearable technology bridge and enhance the social interactions between crowds and the artist in entertainment?

Research topic:

This essay will introduce wearable technology dating from analog watches toward its evolution to the first wearable tech, then to its more complex and digital forms. By tracing its history, we will be able to identify how it relates and differs from wearable computers and wearable media. The second part of the essay will examine the usage of wearable technology in large social settings. Majority of wearable tech are innovated for personal use. Therefore, this essay will analyse wearable technology and its purpose of drawing crowd participation in entertainment.  Theories on Hypermediacy (Bolter,1999) and Transhumanism (Huxley, 1957) may be used to discuss the possible ethical debates of wearable technology.

Research scope:

Wearable technology is used in many professional settings: medicine, military, education. This paper is more concerned with those which apply in more social settings like interpersonal communications and mass entertainment. The latter category will be given more focus due to its popularity of use in simultaneous crowd participation events. Therefore, the author would like to explore wearable technology  used in a grand scale and how audiences respond to it.

Relevance to personal practice:

Wearable technology is one of the growing mediums of communication media technology according to IHS (2013).

The author will be creating a new media installation with wearable media that is to be used in concerts for her final year project. Therefore, this essay will enable her to study wearable technology's relevance to current and future use of the medium for crowd entertainment use.

Feasibility:

The feasibility of this research inquiry is moderate. The author's previous experience with wearable technology would aid her research on consumer needs and user experience.

The inaccessibility to wearable technology experts for deeper insight might be a disadvantage. However, there are current market researches available online by reputable sources and experts related to the field from MIT labs, VINT labs and IHS.

The author will also limit to using a maximum of 2 theories to concoct her argument.

 Timeline:

JULY (2014)	WEEK 9 – 2nd Proposal Draft WEEK 10  - PROPOSAL SUBMISSION
AUGUST	WEEK 12 – Blog progress WEEK 13 – PROPOSAL FEEDBACK
SEPTEMBER	HOLIDAYS - Blog/Research
OCTOBER	HOLIDAYS - Blog/Research - Refine proposal questions - Do some reading and analysing on theories
NOVEMBER	WEEK 2 - BLOG & Refine essay structure and proposal
DECEMBER	WEEK 5 – Blog refinement WEEK 6 - BLOG SUBMISSION WEEK 9 – Submit 1st Essay Draft
JANUARY (2015)	WEEK 10 - Submit 2nd Essay Draft and feedback from previous draft.
FEBRUARY	WEEK 11 - Submit Essay Final Draft and feedback from previous draft. WEEK 12 - SHARING SESSION WEEK 13 - SUBMISSION OF ESSAY
MARCH	Essay Feedback

Bibliography:

Bolter, J. and Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp.213, 217, 218, 219,.

Hypermediacy will be used to evaluate the 'visibility' of wearable technology.

Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, Metahumanism, and New Materialisms Differences and Relations. 8th ed. [ebook] Columbia. Available at: http://www.bu.edu/paideia/existenz/volumes/Vol.8-2Ferrando.pdf [Accessed 7 Oct. 2014].

This pdf contains a detailed comaparison of Huxley's theory of Transhumanism to other similar terms as well.

Lister, M. (2003). New media. 1st ed. London: Routledge, p.20, Glossary.

This book states how interactivity is a 'value added' to new media (Ubi computing)  as 'old' media are more of a passive way of consuming media.

Schneider, S. (2009). Science fiction and philosophy. 1st ed. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, p.Notes.

Through this theory of Transhumanism, wearable media becomes a medium in extending physical and mental limitations.

Srivatsav, N. (n.d.). Witnessed Presence and Wearable Electronics: the design of trust for sociotechnical systems. [online] Academia.edu. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/7092537/Witnessed_Presence_and_Wearable_Electronics_the_design_of_trust_for_sociotechnical_systems [Accessed 6 Jul. 2014].

This paper discusses the social technical presence in wearable technology and how it interacts with the lives of users.

Walsh, K. (2011). Beyond Student Response Systems – The Next Level Of Audience Participation. [online] Emergingedtech. Available at: http://www.emergingedtech.com/2011/09/beyond-student-response-systems-the-next-level-of-audience-participation/ [Accessed 16 Jul. 2014].

This author has shared his experience in audience participation and how technology aids this crowd simultaneous interactivity.

Wearable Technology - Market Assessment. (2013). 1st ed. [ebook] Available at: http://www.ihs.com/pdfs/Wearable-Technology-sep-2013.pdf [Accessed 3 Jul. 2014].

This market assessment by IHS provides detailed calculations of the future of wearable tech as well as the list of functions of the medium.

Huxley, J. (1957). New bottles for new wine. 1st ed. New York: Harper.

I referenced Huxley's Tranhumanism in the proposal.

ASG 2: Feedback on Proposal

Post no.13
Type: Feedback and Self-evaluation


Alright, the top might say 'Post 13', but in fact for Assignment 2, this was only the 8th post. A couple of days ago Daniel (our tutor) posted on our Facebook page, divulging his disappointment on my class's proposals. Along, he attached this photo with some helpful advise.  

I'm going to upload the image here in case the group get's flooded with posts, drowning this one.

Him posting about the proposals reminded me that I had not posted about the feedback that I had about my proposal. I'll be separating this post into 3 parts, where I have had a peer feedback session, a personal tutor feedback session and a self evaluation.

Personal tutor feedback session

• Narrow the title down, Refer to EVENTS in your title essay rather than ENVIRONMENTS. Environments might be too wide and would cover a lot of factors which would put my essay in the 'danger zone which could stray away from the original idea'.

• Make a clear chart on the branches and differences to aid the essay, since my essay contains many comparative issues. Images in the essay help to clarify many things. 

• Have more detailed outlines & structures. (my timeline was really brief)

• WORD CHOICES. Keep it simple. The target audience may not know anything about media or ubi computing. It could be simple, and sophisticated.

• THE FLOW! Take care of it.

• Get some recent ideas, theories. Sometimes old theories tend to contradict current trends and might not be relevant anymore. Make sure the sources are legit.

• Do more deep reading. Truly understand what you are writing about.

Peer feedback session

We all prepared little notes to prepare ourselves for a mini presentation that we thought we had to do that day in class. Taken by surprise, our proposals were given out randomly among our classmates and our friends had to present our proposal based on their understanding. They had to sell it. Shireen presented mine, and I presented hers. How lucky we were to get each other's proposal. She was going to write about games helping the community indirectly through charity drives or directly by playing the games itself. 

After all that, the class had to vote if they would fund the research or not. I had like 5 out of 10 hands.

• The proposal is confusing, too many big words. The flow as well.

• Not intriguing enough.

• Questions about Cyborgism and why didn't I put it in. I told them it was a whole other area to explore, but of course I'd put one or two sentences of it in there.

Self-Evaluation

• I tried too hard to make it sound professional with all those fancy media terms. When we did that peer feedback session, I truly realized that this was a paper for EVERYONE. Know the target audience before writing the paper, or anything for that matter.

• Map my idea down clearly. I might have made a structure, but it should be even clearer.

• Try not to use TOO MANY theories in the essay/proposal. Those are really big ideas and shouldn't be carelessly thrown around just to increase the word count or citing beef in the essay. Using one theory is enough to argue through the entire essay. Well, unless you are comparing contradicting media theories, then yeah. Maximum 2, or 3. Before that, I had like 5 which was too much.

• Images, Images, Images. Include images.

ASG 2: Picture Post

Post no.12
Type: Picture post

Through this picture, I'd like to show how this buzzer is also considered as wearable tech. It's mobile, miniature and invisible. Could it be the future of wearable tech? The image below is a baby using the iPad. The new wave of wearable tech also has to be intuitive if it wants to take flight.

Speaking of taking flight, fictional characters like Doraemon and

Inspector Gadget could've inspired wearable technology. Both have wearable helicopter hats, I can't wait til we could use them without our head detaching from our bodies from the overwhelming gravitational pulls from our weight. Okay, that was gruesome.

Recent movies like Edge of Tomorrow also involve wearable exoskeletons which enhance soldiers' capabilities. The picture right below this little crop of a movie poster that shows the real life developments of exoskeletons for the army. Obviously it would have to be lighter and less bulky to retain stealth.

Let's talk about the current devices that determine our well being today. The smartphones. Many companies like Samsung and Apple are trying really hard to simplify what is already a perfect interface and a perfect size for user navigation. Flexible screens are coming soon, so I'd expect them to turn into wearables soon enough.

Google glass. I'm pessimistic, but I wish them good luck on their future developments. Having voice control which recognises ddifferent accents and languages will take them a really long time to develop.

I almost called this an independent wearable tech. But it's not. You need to pair it up with your smartphone in order to obtain the data. However, it helps with fitness and I don't think it's such a bad idea.

This, is the hug shirt. Despite its utterly ridiculous purpose, it has sold tons. You hug yourself with the shirt on, and that sends the message to your friend's shirt all the way in another country where the pressure is replicated. Don't get me started on the kiss transfer bots. You can check it out here.

Mood ear plugs. Helps you find the song that best suited your mood. It measures your heart rate basically. More info here.

Smart contact lenses. It helps diabetics by alerting them when the glucose content is at dangerously low levels. It takes the data from your tear fluid. Check it out here.

A thermo bracelet by MIT. Users can adjust their own body temperatures by just a flick of a button. Looking forward to the day where I could wear my Hawaii shorts in Alaska. Check it here.

Wearable Defibrillators for health purposes. Check it here. The chart below is an implanted one and it is already being used by the public.

Okay now to images which actually would relate to my essay.

These are current concert wearable tech concert go-ers are wearing to grab attention. It's just lights though, so it's really passive. What if these tech could actually effect the concerts in a dramatic way?

Pranav Mistry being one of my main inspirations of ubiquitous conputing. In the picture below his creation could actually take a picture just by doing that pose. He combines gestures and wearable technology.

Holography phone dialing. Pranav takes Ubi Computing and makes it really literal and real where everything could be an interactable surface.

Take a picture with the gesture.

Cuff communicators. The smart watches these days are somewhat trying to implement this and tried to popularize this mode of communication but it deemed inconvenient and troublesome to use. (not user friendly) These cuffs would probably be cool to use, but bluetooth ear pieces already went there, (in terms of wearable communicators) and has already phased out.

Facebook wristbands used for the Tomorrow land raves where users to send friend requests via NFC.

Check it here.

This wristwatch operates with a fuel cell battery and NFC. It's exclusively created for the Tomorrowland Rave Party event which is held annually. It's a really huge event.

I'm not sure if I had already mentioned and analyzed this product in this blog or my final project blog over here. Anyway, this device apparently sends Facebook Friend requests via NFC (by putting it real close to another Facebook Wristwatch and hitting the little heart button together). Does that remind you of those days when you wanted to send images or songs with infrared connections? One little jerk and the connection would be lost. Ah, memories.

In my opinion, I'd rather yank out my phone and add my friend manually. Gives me an opportunity to run a mini stalking session on my new friend's Facebook Profile before getting anywhere or befriending him/her.

Xyloband, one of my main subjects of discussion. Link here. 
I have analysed this product in post no. 10. A really short one though.