Wearable Computing Spencer Kaiser & Michael Zincone The - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Wearable Computing

Spencer Kaiser & Michael Zincone

The Evolution of Wearable Computing

Brick Computer (Panasonic) Linux Watch (IBM) Tinmith (University of South Australia) Private Eye (Thad Starner) Half Keyboard (Edgar Matias) MIT Lizzy WearARM (ETH Zurich) MIThrill (MIT) Itsy (Compaq) Backpack- Mounted Computer (Steve Mann) Hip-PC (Doug Platt) Xybernaut Q-Belt Integrated Computer (ETH Wearable Group)

1981 1991 2001 2003 1990 1993 2000 2002 2004 1994

The Past

The Present

(2004-2009)

Zypad WL1100 (2007) OQO (2004)

• Explosion in Smartphone Performance

and Functionality

• Wearable Research Adopting Smartphone
• Long-term Sensor Data Collection
• Activity Recognition Applications

Google Glass

Google (2013) Warby Parker (2014)

Smart Watches

IBM Linux Watch (2000) Samsung Galaxy Gear (2013) Apple iWatch (2015)

Steve Mann Designs

1981 Mid-1980’s Early-1990’s Mid-1990’s Late 1990’s

The Future

• Mobile Phone-like Device
• Central on-body platform for general purpose computing tasks
• Carry-on Peripherals
• Microsensors Embedded in Accessories
• Sensing, Communication, and Power Generation Infrastructure

Implemented in Textile Technology

Discussion

Will there be a point in the future where advancements in smartphone technology render wearable computing obsolete?

Will narrowly-focused wearables (e.g., Nike+) ever be completely replaced by smartphones and smartwatches?

Do OS-specific (iOS/Android) smartwatches have a negative impact on the industry as a whole?

Is there a correlation between perceived usefulness and the ease-of-use of a wearable device?

Will the smartwatch continue to gain traction as a technology or will it fizzle out?

Duet

Existing Smartwatch Interactions & Usage

Watch in Foreground

Watch used as a “viewport” or remote to access an smartphone, which was essentially an “inactivated information portal”

Watch in Background

Both the smartphone and the smartwatch as used for context and activity sensing alone

“In conversations between three or more persons, two of them may undertake jointly to carry out the communicative task to a third in such a way that a written version of their resultant in-sequence text would be indistinguishable from that of a single speaker.”

What makes Duet different?

By simultaneously blending the interaction of a smartwatch with that of a smartphone, the overall experience is unified and the output appears to come from a single source

In Other Words…

Existing Smartwatch Interactions & Usage

Watch in Foreground

The smartphone is used as a primary input and output platform, however, the watch is used as an extended display

• r an input device

Watch in Background

The smartphone is still used as a primary input and output platform, the smartwatch is used as a sensor

Duet Interactions

Watch Background

Finger Posture Recognition (Pad/ Side/Knuckle) Double Bump Hold and Flip Flip and Tap Handedness

Watch Foreground

Swiping from Watch to Device Swiping from Device to Watch Pinching in from both devices Pinching out from both devices

Watch Background

Finger Posture Recognition

Knuckle Drag

Double Bump

Hold & Flip

Flip & Tap

Watch Foreground

Pinch

Tool Pallet

Swipe (Device to Watch)

Swipe (Watch to Device)

Utility & Practicality

Watch Foreground

Are these interactions useful? Are they practical and would they be used naturally?

For many interactions, the smartwatch must face the user. Would changing the orientation of the watch be irritating?

Potential Drawbacks

Watch Background

Are these interactions useful? Are they practical and would they be used naturally?

Discussion

Does the application style of duet seem like something that is more marketable than a traditional wearable?

How can either the combination of gestures or what they represent be changed to make the gestures and more intuitive?

Will the gestures and interactions presented by the Duet ever make it to market?