> > I proposed this model because I was trying to get away from the emphasis > on HMD > > as a requirement for an MMW. > > What do you propose as an alternative viewing device? I don't. I'm trying to divorce the goal of a wearable computer, augmentation, from the sensory i/o implementation of it. Just as someone here said (I think it was Thad) that a GUI should be distinct from an OS I think the HMD, Twiddler, and audio are to constricting on the conception of a wearable. Ideally, a wearable should be able to interpret and extend all sensory information- the five senses plus other qualities such as location (GPS), spatial parameters (where your hands and legs are in space and the dimensions of your environement), barometric pressure, night vision, biorythms, etc... IMO wearable enthusiasts should try to demonstrate an adaptable platform instead of working out specific solutions. My motivations aren't for such idealistic reasons, but rather practical ones. I think HMDs are only going to catch on in the mass market when they become more discrete and when people start to see other people using them in some advantageous way. Wearables will evolve by extending the facility of PDAs and mobile connectivity. The first thing people want is to simplify there lives then they will become intrigued with extending their abilities. -- Bill Nordstrom University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center 5323 Harry Hines Blvd. Dallas, TX 75235-9039 W:214-648-9227 Fax: 214-648-8694 emailCooltalk: 129.112.20.190
From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty
Archive created with babymail