Wearable Displays Panel – AWE 2013

June 5, 2013, Augmented World Expo, Santa Clara, CA—A panel of eyewear vendors addressed some of the important topics of wearable displays. Pete Wassell from Augmate moderated the panel. Panel members were Meron Gribetz from Meta, Judith
Baumgarten from Fraunhofer, Anna Jen from Epson, Kayvan Mirza from Optinvent, Steve Mann from Toronto University, John Murray from SeeBright, Stephen Willey from Innovega, and Ron Heidinger from Vizux.

Value proposition?
Gribetz responded that abstraction and the integration of all the other compute and communications devices into a pair of large screens, one per eye. Eventually, natural interfaces.
Baumgarten offered a computer interface for non-computer proficient users.
Jen suggested that wearable displays can be the fourth screen to supplement the TV, PC, and mobile devices.
Mizra considered hands-free, always on interface.
Mann proposed that wearable displays help people see better. This improved view will improve the quality of life with the ability to add and subtract data and images to your normal view. Future apps could improve safety.
Murray responded that this is a new medium. The augmented reality enables the communication of experiences and sharing of your life.
Willey answered the user interface and everything all of the others said.
Heidinger noted that the devices can be used in many ways. There will be lots of apps and the devices will be optimized for the use cases. Safety and efficiency are key areas.

Issues and when do we get to a tipping point?
Heidinger said that power, a transparent and seamless interface, and comfort are important.
Willey added weight, size, and potential for entertainment.
Murray opined that the cultural and interpersonal issues are most important. Social acceptability and norms have to be developed. Affordability, and casual apps will allow the eyewear to replace the smart phone.
Mann postulated that veillence—the observing part of surveillance—is the big issue. The tipping point will be when people have a greater sense of self. The point of eye type displays are needed for true interactions and to reduce the boundaries between the cipher and real world.
Mizra pondered the need for hands-free and always on operation. Light weight, ergonomic designs, and a good user interface will help. The tipping point will come when people understand the value proposition.
Jen espoused the projection technologies to make a glass platform as the basis for a total solution. A new ecosystem needs to be developed to enable better base technologies.
Baumgarten commented that there are two separate areas with issues. The technology has to address field of view, brightness, 3-D tracking and projection, and mix with other senses. From the personal standpoint, there are psychic implications for kids and the visual techniques have to be comfortable for all users.
Gribetz declared that adding an indicator for recording would not fix the privacy issues, due to the ability to hack the indicator. Natural interfaces can take one of three paths: notifier, a “Matrix” machine that puts you into a movie, or something better than a two-year old pointing at something.

Killer app for digital eyewear?
Mizra complained that there will be no single killer app, but many that are function and platform dependent. The use modes will change the apps and appliances. Some possible areas are in military, medical, warehouse operations, messaging, and AR video for commercials.
Jenn agreed that the apps are limitless. There will be lots of developers for many types of apps. Some possible areas include industrial productivity, hands-free, etc.
Baumgarten concurred that there will be many functions. Potential areas include security, education, and sightseeing.
Gribetz suggested that digital eyewear would be good as a virtual sculpting tool for arts and architecture.
Mann argued that this is the wrong question. All of the apps and focuses are just an implementation of computer supported living. For real life, we need help with daily functions like remembering people and their relationship to you, safety, etc. all of these functions are really more like anti-apps.
Murray concurred with the majority that there is no killer app. If this technology is like the Web, we sill see a lot of developers making micro-apps. The whole field has to be open for development and integrated with the Web.
Willey advocated entertainment functions. The displays are becoming the interface to suites of apps for many base functions.
Heidinger wavered about killer apps. Most use cases will depend on the market, so the displays have to be adaptable to various markets.

Privacy?
Mann proposed that the field needs to consider per-veillence, the right to not be watched. Surveillance is by official entities through hidden or obscured cameras that are covered or domed. These measures ensure that the general public cannot tell if the camera is pointing in their direction. An alternative is sous-veillence, the viewing from the public towards the other viewers. One question is ” if you are not doing anything wrong, why are you so paranoid?” Nevertheless, the ability to record anything at any time is a challenge.
Murray pleaded that users only wear the eyewear when they want to record. A part of the debate is social, other parts are technical. The ability to search through your life-log calls for definitions on why you have to do such a thing.
Willey brought up the ethical values card that the hardware platforms need the users to define the use cases. Where is privacy and do the users also need to be private?
Heidinger added from a practical standpoint, the indicator light for the camera might be enough in the short term.
Mizra agreed that this is a transitional issue. The transition from phones and changes in platforms will eventually change societal norms. The light on the camera, however, can be hacked, so it may not give an indication when recording. Responsible use will have to come from the developer community. Maybe the eyewear should not have record capabilities.
Jen mentioned that this is global issue. There are different standards and norms in every country, so the guidelines for social etiquette have to be developed on a local basis. Self policing is the best short term answer.
Baumgarten declared that technology will have to address privacy for and from yourself and for and from others. It will be hard to make eye contact if one person has coated 1-way lenses, and impossible if both have these types of lenses.
Gribetz brought in the issue of personal versus company. Any records should be personal and not for others unless you want to share.

Future?
Gribetz advocated depth sensors, and further integration to get all of the (optical) components in a contact lens.
Baumgarten included multi-modal interfaces to the contact lenses.
Jen advocated further developments on the base platforms. The systems have to get smaller, better, brighter, and cheaper.
Mizra noted that the user interface needs a lot of work. Gestures will not work for any length of time, since your arms will get tired of moving around. Hands-free is the way to go, but we might be able to use a cell phone as a remote control. An alternative is to use voice commands. The form factor has to be sleek, light, and small.
Mann recommended that we try to get to a gen-5 type device as quickly as possible. 3-D overlays and extramissive—detect and emit light—components are necessary.
Murray wanted to see interfaces balance conventions and natural interactions.
Wiley called for contact lens version of digital eyewear. New products will create new markets and the integration of other sensors will change the nature of wearable displays.
Heidinger concluded that built-in computers and batteries that can last all day are needed.