Animated Interfaces Gaining Traction
March 23, 2016
I’ve been a fan of animated interfaces for years, going back to the amazing work that Sun’s Self team did on the Self user interface. The MorphicMaloney, J. H., & Smith, R. B. (1995). Directness and Liveness in the Morphic User Interface Construction Environment. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface and Software Technology (pp. 21–28). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/215585.215636user interface used in Self was interesting in a lot of ways, especially how it bent over backwards to make the interface feel alive and like you were truly directly manipulating the objects you were creating and working with, both as you programmed and as you used it. I particularly like how the team adapted traditional animation techniques for the UI, building off the years of experience traditional animators had in making cartoon animations feel “real”Chang, B.-W., & Ungar, D. (1993). Animation: From Cartoons to the User Interface. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 45–55). New York, NY, USA: ACM. doi:10.1145/168642.168647.
Preparing for UIST 2014 … decade-old technology rises from the dead!
September 23, 2014
Our old laptop, freshly awoken from 2007. In a few weeks, my colleague Maribeth Gandy and I will be presenting a paper at UIST 2014 (ACM’s User Interface Software and Technology conference), reflecting back on what we learned from our DART system (The Designer’s Augmented Reality Toolkit, the first paper on DART was published at UIST 2004!).
Apple Claims the High Ground on Privacy
September 18, 2014
Yesterday, I blogged about an interview with Tim Cook where he made some great claims about Apple’s stance on privacy. More keeps coming. They are pushing everyone to two-factor authentication on iCloud, for example. Now, Apple posted a web page talking about how privacy is built into iOS and their services, which is chock full of wonderful things (and repleat with jabs at “their competitors”).
You are not an iProduct
September 16, 2014
I’ve been thinking lately about privacy and the relationship to the business strategies of various companies, and have become fond of saying that there are two companies: ones that sell products and ones for whom you are the product. Google and Facebook are the canonical examples of the later half (Google does sell some things, but largely does not, or does it at a massive loss). Apple and Microsoft are canonical examples for the former. There is a question, as The Googleplex continues to demonstrate the power of “free”, which direction Apple and Microsoft are going to go in the future.
We Need New Business Models in IoD
September 14, 2014
Today, I gave a talk at the Ubiquitous Computing conference’s Workshop on Usable Privacy & Security for wearable and domestic ubIquitous DEvices (UPSIDE), modestly titled “Augmented Reality + Internet of Devices + Big Data: The End of Privacy?” I’ll post something else about this talk soon, but one of the goals was
HomeKit, Google, Facebook, Privacy and the Internet of Things
June 20, 2014
While there is much that can be said about privacy, security, policy and the Internet of Things (in fact, I’m going to be co-teaching a graduate class at Georgia Tech on this very topic next spring), here I want to focus on one thing: the invasion of your home and my hope Apple and their partners take privacy seriously.
Interesting Video: Free is a Lie
May 3, 2014
Lance Weatherby posted a link to this video on his blog, and I agree with him that it’s interesting and worth watching.
Aside: Reforming Money in Politics
May 1, 2014
[For those who don’t agree with campaign, please forgive me posting this in my blog; I prefer to focus here on technology and design issues. However, I believe strongly in this issue and want to help spread the word!]
Talk at AWE-NY on “AR Development using Web Technologies”
April 28, 2014
Oculus + Facebook = social virtual, or a stepping stone?
April 28, 2014
I’ve made no secret that I’m not optimistic about the prospect for VR’s success as a consumer product, this time ‘round, any more than I thought it was going to work for consumers last time ‘round (i.e., the 80’s and 90’s, when I first played with it). So, while I have some dev kits (to hack for AR!) and have an Oculus “VR” sticker on my care (because it’s weird), I was definitely in the camp of folks dumbfounded when Facebook bought Oculus.
Cute idea, but getting ‘See-Through’ hood to ‘work’ is the hard part
April 10, 2014
I saw a nice concept over on Mashable in this article, Land Rover’s ‘See-Through’ Hood Shows the Road Under Your Wheels. Here’s the video (which is the key part):
Would love to see a Random AR interface
April 4, 2014
POI’s are Pointless
April 2, 2014
I was reminded today about something thats been bugging me for a while: POIs, as a central data element for AR, are terrible. (They have their place, of course, but I’m thinking about them as the “main” data type in an AR experience).
Stop talking about “Augmented Reality Apps”
April 1, 2014
Last week I gave a couple of talks about the challenges and opportunities that arise when using web technologies to create augmented reality experiences. (This was the same talk I mentioned in a previous post.) As I was preparing the talks, I found myself creating a slide imploring the audience to stop focusing on technology features (i.e., incrementally better tracking, getting-better-but-still-not-usable see-through head-worn displays) and start considering the big picture of what it will take for AR to move from being a niche technology to more widely used. Here’s the slide, pulled out of the context of the talk (so please don’t critique it in isolation), with two points highlighted in bold:
Supreme Court Revisits the Question: Should software be patentable?
March 31, 2014
The question of whether software should be patentable or not is hotly debated in the computer industry. Another case is now before the supreme court, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, where the plaintiff argues that because their patent uses a computer, it amounts to an invention that is patentable. According to this quite nice article in the Washington Post, this is a big step, as previous rulings by the high court that upheld software patents said that they must have some tangible interaction with the world, not just be algorithms run on computers. The article concludes: