Sixth sense from MIT labs

17 Apr 2009 - 3:26pm
5 years ago
12 replies
1061 reads
sgururaj
2007

Just wanted to share this talk from Pattie Maes @ MIT. She takes
interaction with our environment to a whole new level. A fantastic
watch and certainly game-changing technology.
http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
Enjoy,
-seema

Comments

18 Apr 2009 - 10:06am
Janna DeVylder
2006

I really enjoyed this. It most made me think about privacy. Although
mobile technologies do not necessarily afford privacy, you're at least
dealing with a small screen that you can be discrete with. The
projection of information within shared spaces certainly adds
'texture' for people to base their perception of you, and the power to
influence their choices (particularly when they don't have access to
the device themselves). I also like the idea of relying more on
recognition technologies rather than relying on rfid tags in order to
get rich contextual information.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Seema Gururaj
<seema_gururaj at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just wanted to share this talk from Pattie Maes @ MIT. She takes
> interaction with our environment to a whole new level. A fantastic
> watch and certainly game-changing technology.
> http://www.ted.com/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
> Enjoy,
> -seema
> ________________________________________________________________

18 Apr 2009 - 12:08pm
jasonrobb
2009

See Andy Rutledge's article on this talk.
http://www.andyrutledge.com/blind-leading-the-blind.php#fragment-4

He claims this talk "demonstrates a measure of irresponsibility,
misrepresented facts, and shallow thinking..."

Definitely worth a read!

Cheers,

Jason R.
www.jasonrobb.com

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41348

19 Apr 2009 - 10:33am
Sharon Greenfield5
2008

Yes but, Andy Rutledge doesn't know design at all.

I mean standard English writing design that is; he takes six
paragraphs to get to the reason why he disliked the talk.

And he often has open ended statements that berates the MIT group but
doesn't explain *why* he dislikes their premise.
An example: "The reason we don’t start accessing digital devices to
help us to decide how to proceed in those situations is not because
it’s too encumbering or impolite, but because most of us are not
irretrievably stupid. Perhaps someone should point out to Dr. Maes
that we already have this “6th sense” that she was wondering about
earlier. And it’s far more robust and trustworthy than her shallow and
misguided technological placebo. "

...and? One would expect after reading that you would receive what the
writer has supposed. He calls them stupid, says we already have a '6th
sense', but then doesn't explain what he thinks that is - or heck if I
could find it in his article; if you do, please tell me.

And then he disparages the MIT folks by calling them a "research
group" in quotes after already calling them stupid.
Take a lesson from Rachel Maddow when she debates with Pat Buchanan,
and be respectful of your opponent, even if you disagree with them; it
helps your own argument and credibility that much more. Something
doesn't sit right with the tone and intention coming from behind the
words; what, did his application for this MIT program get turned
down? ;)

On Apr 18, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Jason Robb wrote:

> See Andy Rutledge's article on this talk.
> http://www.andyrutledge.com/blind-leading-the-blind.php#fragment-4
>
> He claims this talk "demonstrates a measure of irresponsibility,
> misrepresented facts, and shallow thinking..."
>
> Definitely worth a read!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jason R.
> www.jasonrobb.com
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41348
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

19 Apr 2009 - 2:36pm
Mary Specht
2009

Thanks, Jason, for the link. Live, I agree with you that Andy seems
suspiciously bitter.

When you get past the gratuitous insults and over-the-top rage, the
cell-phone-while-driving analogy is actually pretty interesting.

I don't agree with Andy that taking in extra information always
makes us swerve, the way we do in a car when we're using a cell
phone.

But it does raise interesting questions about how people would best
interface with this information. Projection may work for some things,
but what if you didn't want the other person you're meeting to know
that you're researching them? Could this information fit more
seamlessly into the interaction if you were getting it in an earbud,
for example? Or would that interfere too much with the real-world
conversation with this new friend?

Humans can process and use this information without swerving; we just
need to find the best delivery mechanism.

Neat stuff to think about.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41348

19 Apr 2009 - 3:46pm
Angel Marquez
2008

I loved that demo when I first saw it!

I like the idea of incorporating tech with apparel. I'm really more
interested into consolidating physical space and shedding more gadgetry.

As for being blindsided by an opposing opinion with nothing but a
negative charge...consider it a valuable lesson. Turning a negative
into a positive is utility.

Thanks for sharing! Don't stop because some don't appreciate it.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 19, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Mary Specht <mary.specht at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Jason, for the link. Live, I agree with you that Andy seems
> suspiciously bitter.
>
> When you get past the gratuitous insults and over-the-top rage, the
> cell-phone-while-driving analogy is actually pretty interesting.
>
> I don't agree with Andy that taking in extra information always
> makes us swerve, the way we do in a car when we're using a cell
> phone.
>
> But it does raise interesting questions about how people would best
> interface with this information. Projection may work for some things,
> but what if you didn't want the other person you're meeting to know
> that you're researching them? Could this information fit more
> seamlessly into the interaction if you were getting it in an earbud,
> for example? Or would that interfere too much with the real-world
> conversation with this new friend?
>
> Humans can process and use this information without swerving; we just
> need to find the best delivery mechanism.
>
> Neat stuff to think about.
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41348
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

19 Apr 2009 - 5:00pm
Alan James Salmoni
2008

That was very entertaining and there are lots of possibilities for
this. My only concerns are a) having access to authoritative
information (ie, when requesting information about, eg, a product,
not being redirected just towards advertisers) and b) ensuring that
it's proof against spammers / phishers etc, who will relish the idea
of being able to directly access people. Security needs to be built in
from the very first or people are going to be swamped in crap.

Having said that, IxD is going to be even more fun in the future than
it is now!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41348

19 Apr 2009 - 5:05pm
Alan James Salmoni
2008

Angel: "I'm really more interested into consolidating physical space
and shedding more gadgetry. "

it's a good point Angel. There is a real danger of having too much
information available too often, but then people can always just
switch the device off. Then, the danger would be that if this thing
becomes entirely ubiquitous, people may not be able to function
without it - imagine not being able to buy a bus ticket because
you're fed up with always being bombarded with information and you
want to take a rest? Sometimes, I like to have a coffee and sit back
and just watch the world go by..

I can see that it has very useful applications across all sorts of
areas of life, but like I said in a previous post, security needs to
be paramount or else it could also be a nightmare of spam and id
theft.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41348

19 Apr 2009 - 5:21pm
jayeffvee
2007

As was mentioned before, there are interesting privacy issues about
this -- both the user's privacy in wanting to research without
letting their object of research know and the object's right not to
be researched. And then there's what seems to me to be the strange
and very invasive use of the object's body -- from a female
perspective, I'm sure I don't want some stranger at a networking
event trying to read my LinkedIn profile from my decolletage.

I know that eyeglasses were explored as far back at least as the
mid-1990s as a way of delivering contextual/environmental metadata to
users in an unobtrusive manner -- but I'm having trouble finding any
in depth, up to date information on them via Google -- there are
these teasers, however:

http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/mithril/memory-glasses.html
and
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v65n333512374772/

Does anyone have any first hand knowledge/experience of them? I
wonder about about using them with the gestural interface shown in
Pattie Mae's demo?

On Apr 19, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Mary Specht wrote:
>
> But it does raise interesting questions about how people would best
> interface with this information. Projection may work for some things,
> but what if you didn't want the other person you're meeting to know
> that you're researching them? Could this information fit more
> seamlessly into the interaction if you were getting it in an earbud,
> for example? Or would that interfere too much with the real-world
> conversation with this new friend?
>
> Humans can process and use this information without swerving; we just
> need to find the best delivery mechanism.
>

Joan Vermette
email: jayeffvee at mac.com
primary phone: 617-495-0184

19 Apr 2009 - 6:16pm
Angel Marquez
2008

I would love be able to put my hands in my hoodie pockets, or even carry
around PS3 controller with projectile capabilities, and project a street
fighter game on a wall and have some other yuck that has the same gear be
able to roll up and project their character onto mine and have some corner
locking synch system make it so we can move around and battle it out.
http://www.design.philips.com/sites/philipsdesign/probes/projects/tattoo/index.page

To add to the convo...

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Alan Salmoni <alan at usernumber1.com> wrote:

> Angel: "I'm really more interested into consolidating physical space
> and shedding more gadgetry. "
>
> it's a good point Angel. There is a real danger of having too much
> information available too often, but then people can always just
> switch the device off. Then, the danger would be that if this thing
> becomes entirely ubiquitous, people may not be able to function
> without it - imagine not being able to buy a bus ticket because
> you're fed up with always being bombarded with information and you
> want to take a rest? Sometimes, I like to have a coffee and sit back
> and just watch the world go by..
>
> I can see that it has very useful applications across all sorts of
> areas of life, but like I said in a previous post, security needs to
> be paramount or else it could also be a nightmare of spam and id
> theft.
>
>
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Posted from the new ixda.org
> http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41348
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

19 Apr 2009 - 7:29pm
mauropin
2007

Mary, just a bit of information. You asked about other ways of having
access to the information without others being aware of it.

Professor Steve Mann has an extensive work on wearable computers, and
years ago he has developed a system where the information is projected
into what he calls an "eyetap". This eyetap works either as a video
camera and as a computer screen, where the images recorded are
projected, and in which other layers of information are applied. Once
you're using the eyetap, ou don't see through it, you see the
projection of the "real world", augmented with other information, on
the screen.

I saw a lecture from Professor Mann about 10 years ago, and I remember
he has mentioned a software he used for helping him to remember other
people. The software would take pictures of another person's face and
create a "map" using the basic features - distance between the eyes,
for example. This information is stored, and he can create a profile
of the person - who is, where he/she works... When he meets a person
that he can't recall who is, he can again "scan" this person's face
and look for a matching face on the database, helping him to remind
who he/she is. This is done without the person being aware of what is
going on.

Likewise, Professor Mann was usually talking to you and at the same
time accessing other information - reading email, surfing the
web...whatever. He said he was so used to the wearable computer, and
having computer generated information layers over the "regular world",
that he felt weird without it!

More info about his work:
http://wearcomp.org/

I'm not sure if he still is into this "wearable computer" stuff anymore...

--
prof. mauro pinheiro
universidade federal do espírito santo
centro de artes
depto. de desenho industrial

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Mary Specht <mary.specht at gmail.com> wrote:

> But it does raise interesting questions about how people would best
> interface with this information. Projection may work for some things,
> but what if you didn't want the other person you're meeting to know
> that you're researching them? Could this information fit more
> seamlessly into the interaction if you were getting it in an earbud,
> for example? Or would that interfere too much with the real-world
> conversation with this new friend?
>
> Humans can process and use this information without swerving; we just
> need to find the best delivery mechanism.
>
> Neat stuff to think about.

20 Apr 2009 - 12:22pm
sgururaj
2007

Great discussion!
The way I look at this is that - here is some innovative technology,
that has been proven, protoyped & built.
The creativity comes with how we [as designers, developers,
organizations etc.. ] choose to use it.
Perhaps the example where you are researched on the spot was not the
best in terms of privacy etc:) But this
dosent take away from the possiblities.

The blog post that Jason forwarded - the author acknowledges that
"Much of this technology is quite fascinating, creative, useful, and
could provide a springboard toward much innovation" Touché !

Let's not get hung up on the 'specific' examples that Dr Mae's
team demoed. It was a 'demo' & needed some WOW factor!
Thanks for forwarding links to other examples.
-seema

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41348

Syndicate content Get the feed