CS855 Week 6 Blogpost: Analysis of the Futurist Prediction for Virtual Reality.

CS855 Week 6 Blogpost: Analysis of the Futurist Prediction for Virtual Reality.

As I have been dealing with VR for my innovation, I thought that this would be the best prediction for me to work with. In Halal’s Technology's Promise, the prediction is:

“the Internet will be dominated by VR about 2015. . . Our experts agree VR is likely to enter homes and offices about 2016, allowing virtual meetings with life-like 3D images, intimate conversations with distant friends, and almost any type of social transaction.”

This prediction is based upon what the TechCast.org sees as recent advances in VR technology: 3D stereoscopic imaging in movies, computer screens and televisions; internet immersion applications that allow users to walk around virtual objects in virtual ‘rooms’ and hold meetings with other virtual users (avatars);video games that are presented in realistic 3D (though on a 2D TV or computer screen) and increased use of video conferencing systems, plus other technology announced as under development by SONY, the US DoD, CISCO and Japan.

In my opinion, some of the prediction is a little conservative, for recent advances in 3D projection/display for movies, TV’s and computer monitors are already here and 3D rendering of images for video games and movies is commonplace and is fast enough to no longer require years of “post production” work as was necessary for such earlier films as “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” (1988).

Full 3D movies (requiring special glasses, though not the old-style blue-and-red paper ones) and computers and televisions providing 3D via electronic glasses, plus movies video games, and television shows with animated characters or special effects rendered to look 3D-on-a-2D-screen  are all available now, with varying levels of success. Most successful are the 3D-on-a-2D-screen  video games and some 3D movies. The recent failure of several 3D movies (“Mars Needs Moms” comes to mind) has shown that 3D alone cannot guarantee success, and people (children in particular) really hate to wear those special glasses to get the 3D effect!  Both my Instructor and my son who works in Special Effects have reported that the glasses often give the wearer headaches. My son says it comes from major cognitive dissidence between what is being displayed to the individual optic nerves, but regardless of the cause, people that watch lots of TV (like me) or play lots of video games (like my other son and grandson) will not wear something that gives them migraines!

This seems to show me that people are willing to accept the less-than-full 3D effects as good-enough until the technology for no-glasses and headaches 3D becomes available.

Recent advances in VOIP and Video-conferencing systems, while not 3D, are allowing people to make video-calls for business and personal use, so VR is not really needed at this time, and until VR becomes secure, easy to use, and able to be quickly rendered for fast response, it will not be accepted into common use in the business world. The prediction assumes that the Internet interface is high-speed  (Which is pretty much a given for most businesses) and that the video card of the user’s computer is able to adequately process the images, something that no PC that my  business provided me  could do, and something that I do not believe is available for all devices. Good response and 3D imaging for video games requires either a dedicated video console or an upgraded Desktop or laptop system with a fairly advanced video card and lots of video RAM. The movies and games produced for mobile devices are pretty good, but not at all up to video game console standards.

My class uses Second Life to demonstrate its capability, and, while some of the class and my instructor seem to get good results, my laptop (and others that I have access to) never produces anything except slow, jerky responses and even slower rendering that gives me a less than enjoyable experience. Second Life has many adherents, both personal and business, but is far from becoming the center-of-the-cyberverse that it has been hyped to be.

But that is now, the prediction was for internet “domination by VR [by] 2015” and in common use in homes and businesses by 2016. I believe that we will have glasses-free 3D by 2016 and full acceptance into the home and office by 2021. I base this on the fact that many of us, myself included, do not immediately go and buy a new media system until it has been proven that the bugs are out. Now, the 3D that I envision is one that is more of what the sci-fi novels used to call a “holo-tank”, one that projects objects out into the area in front of the “screen” of the device. In last year’s move, Gamer, the director showed the home of a rich, spoiled teen-ager with full 3D capability, virtual controls and screens floating in space around the user and reacting to gestures, while another user had regular, non-3D screens that also reacted to gestures, but still required keyboards and remote controls!

The final piece of the prediction is that VR on the web will allow “virtual meetings with life-like 3D images, intimate conversations with distant friends, and almost any type of social transaction” to done in 3D meeting areas, chat rooms, and VR Video calls. This I am not sure about. On the one hand, the present generation is actually moving toward texting, tweeting and IM’ing and away from live phone calls (I have to text my own sons and grandson to get any real-time response; phone calls go to voice mail and I get a call-back hours or days later! On the other hand, they are becoming very comfortable with interacting in groups online via the various video games such as World of Warcraft and Call of Duty. Should the VR avatars be able to ‘talk’ just with text and look like things other than just the user, then they may be readily accepted for personal use. In the video conferences that I attended at work, many folks did not want to be ‘on camera’, but wanted to see everyone else, so the VR meetings, where people could attend from their desks and always look well-groomed, and be able to multi-task without the others being able to see what they are doing (as opposed to obviously checking email in a real meeting room), might help that problem. Again, the PCs used by the average business employee would have to be strongly video-capable, but in the next 5 – 10 years the capability of the least of our smartphones will probably exceed that of the best videogame consoles available today!

In summary, here are my thoughts on Techrast.org’s predictions:

VR to dominate the Internet  by 2015	Optimistic. More like 2021
VR in our homes and offices by 2016:	Pessimistic – some already there As envisioned by TechCast, more like 2021 Until 3D tech (SW & HW) improves, it will stay on the sidelines and mostly used for entertainment.
Meetings in VR in 2016	Pessimistic – some already there, As envisioned by TechCast, more like 2021
VR conversations in 2016	Pessimistic – some already ther As envisioned by TechCast, more like 2021
VR social interactions in 2016	Pessimistic – some already ther As envisioned by TechCast, more like 2021

References

Halal, W. (2008). Technology's Promise: Knowledge on the Transformation of Business and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, NY. ISBN-13: 978-0230019546

Mars Needs Moms (2011). IMBD. Retrieved on 5/15/11 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305591/

Gamer (2009) IMBD. Retrieved on 5/15/11 from http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=Gamer

CS855 Week 5 Social Technical Planning for the KADACTYL (KAGE + CAD/CAM + Dactyl) CAD/CAM system using the Waldactyl (Waldo + Dactyl) glove haptic feedback system

CS855 Week 5 Social Technical Planning
For the Week 5 Blog post (which is a week late) I am to imagine for a moment that I have been asked to develop a socio-technical plan for a particular goal in 10-20 years.
I have chosen to discuss an innovation idea that will revolutionize the CAD/CAM industry
I have created a fictional company, Kraken Arts Grasp Engineering (KAGE, Inc.), a company that is deeply involved in CAD/CAM systems.
The issue that they are facing is the lack of a common interface for /CAM, tele-operation and “Virtual Art” applications and force-feedback haptic devices
STS Plan

Introduction - 10-20 year vision - addressing a problem or a new innovation
I. Introduction - 10-20 year vision - addressing a problem or a new innovation
    a. Problem - A common interface is needed for CAD/CAM, graphical arts and teleoperation applications
        1. Present applications use different interfaces, command structures and interface devices.
        2. Users/operators have to be trained on each system
        3. Interfaces not human analogs of actions
   b. 5 – 10 Years - Innovation
       i. KAGE will develop the Waldactyl haptic glove and KADACTYL CAD/CAM System to address                   CAD/CAM and graphic arts areas.
           1. System will use motion sensors on the monitors
           2. Gloves will use magnetic/electroactive polymers to provide haptic feedback
                 a. Electro/magnetic polymer muscles will auto-fit to the user
           3. Gyroscopes within the gloves’ bracelets will provide kinesthetic feedback to 3D movement.
           4. Communication will be via Bluetooth/Bluetooth-next-generation standard protocol.
           5. API will be released Open-source so that other companies can adapt the
                Waldactyl gloves for their own systems/equipment.
   c. 10 – 20 Years
        i. KAGE will develop a full haptic-capable VR suit based upon the Waldactyl technology.
           1. Modular: helmet, lab-coat (jacket and pants), jacket, pants, boots & gloves.
                a. Suit will close magnetically, modules connect magnetically, no cable-connectors
      ii. Gloves will be adapted to appeal to non-business/non-computer-graphic users.
          1. Add color- and shape-changing capacity to external surface.
           2. “Shape-apps” like ring-tones made available.
II. Scope - how much are you doing?
     a. Development of Waldactyl glove technology and KADACTYL software CAD/CAM system.
          i. Outputs compatible with standard CAD/CAM, Numeric controller and new 3D Printers.
     b. Release of Waldactyl API Open Source
III. Purpose and Goals -- why do it?
      a. A common interface is needed for CAD/CAM, graphical arts and teleoperation applications
          i. Present applications use different interfaces, command structures and interface devices.
             1. Users/operators have to be trained on each system
             2. Interfaces not human analogs of actions
      b. KADACTYL System that combines our new Waldactyl haptic gloves with CAD/CAM design and
           simulation software.
           i. User will be able to touch, move and experience the materials and controls they are using.
IV. Supporting Forces - what will help to realize it?
     a. Technical:
           i. Move toward touch- and gesture-based interfaces
              1. Smartphone, tablet and e-book reader interfaces
              2. Wii and Kinect Videogame systems
          ii. Advances in haptic technology
              1. Electroactive/magnetic-active polymers and fluids
              2. Haptography to take ‘haptic pictures’ of shapes and tectures
         iii. Interest in VR and more human-analog interfaces.
        iv. Development of the 3D printer
    b. Social/cultural:
        i. Move to more human-analog interfaces
        ii. Acceptance of technology as a part of life
        iii. Drive for massive customization
       iv. Return of technical hobbyists
            1. Advanced CAD/CAM, usable by non-tech, along with 3D printers will
                allow for custom art and modelling
V. Challenging Forces (risk) - what may hinder or block it?
      a. Historical:
          i. This is new and Industrial Design is very conservative
     b. Personal:
         i. People do not like to wear gadgets
        ii. Poor interface design can make the use of gloves and gestures klugey and tiring
VI. Methodology (approach) - how will we approach it?
     a. The new KADACTYL System will be approached in layers:
         i. KAGE’s present CAD/CAM system will continue to be updated and
            supported as an independent CAD/CAM application
             1. Voice commands added to standard interface
        ii. An interface level for the Waldactyl technology:
             1. Waldactyl “input” technology – motion/position sensor software development
                  for calculating hand position, tasks and gesture control.
             2. Waldactyl “output” technology – VRML/XML command structure to provide
                  haptic control of the glove technology
      iii. Physical Development of the Waldactyl glove
            1. Electroactive polymers and magnetic responsive fluids to provide haptic and
                kinesthetic feedback to the user
                    a. Extra sensors for fine-detail glove position data to interface
                     b. Development of the auto-fit functionality
             2. Gyroscopic controls in the ‘bracelet”/base of the glove for ungrounded
                 3D resistance to glove movement.
          iv. Final Integration of the parts
VII. Model - a visual representation of it.
            a. Auto-fitting the gloves

        b. Using the gloves for Virtual Pot Throwing

VIII. Analytical Plan - how will we recognize success?
         a. When the Three pieces of KADACTYL –
               CAD/CAM, Waldactyl input and output work together seamlessly.
         b. Customers buy the new system for a profit.
IX. Anticipated Results - what will success look like in 10-20 years?
        a. Waldactyl gloves are the standard interface for haptic feedback
        b. Waldactyl gloves are in common use with other devices: video games,
             cell phones, etc. – virtual keyboards, music simulation (guitar) and many more.
X. Conclusion - Summary with observations - including the global impact.
      a. None yet.

CS855 – Week 4 – Focused Discussion of an Innovation Idea

CS855 – Week 4 – Focused Discussion of an Innovation Idea that might be implemented in the ext 10 -20 years, suggested to the class during the second week.
For that activity I suggested the following:
“Full Virtual Reality Immersion - suits using 'artificial muscles' controlled by electro-magnetic fields to provide haptic/textures and also using audio/video output so that the user "becomes" the avatar in the Second life paradigm.”
The more that I thought about this, the more that I realized that I was missing an important point: motion! In order for the user to ‘enter’ the ‘virtual holodeck’ that I was thinking about to get the full immersion experience from the use of the full body suit to act as a ‘reverse exoskeleton’ (giving the illusion of weight and resistance in lifting, holding, touching, and so forth, the objects of the virtual world), the user needs an omni-directional treadmill so that he/she can walk, run, etc., about the world!
Now, there are some present attempts for this, one company produces a 7-ft diameter “hamster ball” that people can enter and then walk about in any direction, but it has a couple of problems: it has only one ‘floor’ (the rounded bottom); and cannot instantly change direction (forward to backward is not bad, but forward-to-a-hard-right will knock the user down)! A couple of VR games lock the user in a waist-level “cage” above a slick surface, so that the user’s feet are barely touching the ‘ground’ and can seem to change direction as the game progresses. But neither seem, to me, to be the way to go. What is needed is a “semi-liquid” surface with no inertia that would allow the user to walk or run, or turn or twist in any direction and would ‘carry’ the user’s feet around its surface. Robert Heinlein suggested such a thing in his 1940 story The Roads Must Roll, though, of course, the technology was never described, the roads just ‘magically moved’ like infinite moving sidewalks.
One modern haptic technology uses electroactive polymers that change their viscosity or shape as they have electricity or electromagnetic fields applied to them. So, I rather envision a Dance, Dance Revolution – type floor mat that has a ‘mobile surface’ that is both solid and able to flow and move under the users’ feet!
Now, the suit itself also uses this technology to create, as I commented on before, a reverse-ex0-skeleton. I call it a reverse-exo-skeleton not because it is not an exo-skeleton, but because it will be there not to give motion to immobile limbs or to make the user stronger, but to use, essential, isometric forces to simulate weight, resistance, create a wall or a chair, though sitting on a high desk or wall might not work so well (**chuckle**)! The suit will pull the hands down for a weight, or stop in position to assist in holding an object. Body-position sensors would keep the user and the game in synchronization.
From outside, it should look rather like the user is performing a mime act – walking, leaning, sitting in mid-air, grabbing, etc.
Now I am assuming that 3D glasses/goggles will continue to improve and that the VR/gaming helmet will cover the whole face and mouth, which then means that it must also have temperature elements (hot sun, cold ‘winds’, etc.) and ‘smell-a-vision’ to add scent to the other senses!
My research is showing that vibration can simulate some movement and depth-perception. Vision tends to also add depth, and the electroactive polymers could be used in the boots and gloves to provide tactile/textural clues as well.
I see the full-immersion suit as looking a lot like the costumes used in both the old and new TRON movies, kind of a cross between the jumpsuits on Star Trek: The Next Generation and the wetsuits used in scuba diving today.
On a comfort level, the suit would have to allow the user to sweat and cool down, and breathe and, maybe take a drink or eat, though I have to admit that this one has me stumped, for a full-face mask and eating seem to be mutually exclusive, but that is only now and the limit of my imagination!
Discuss it in terms of the Delphi Method or the Nominal Group Technique (NGT)
The real difference between the NGT and the Delphi is in the privacy factors. NGT groups are known to each other, as they are all members of a given class/course. Individual responses to the questionnaires in each method are private but, at least in the NGT, the writing style or opinions expressed may be familiar to the participants and allow them to guess who-said-what.
Both systems use an interactive format and both have the participants answer questions that are then collated and returned with feedback for the next round. NGT is directed to class/course work evaluations, while Delphi can be used for anything.
It seems to me that my class, if it is going to evaluate the “Innovation Ideas”, then we need to use a modified version of the NGT, for we have no privacy and our names are associated with our comments, but we do need to develop a set of standard questions so that we can evaluate all the different ideas, but collate the data from them in the same manner.
For me, I think the standard set should be something like this:
1. Is this a reasonable Innovation (i.e., do you believe that it will be implemented in the 10 -20 year time frame)?
a. If “NO”, please explain: _________________________________________________
2. Does the Innovation represent a logical progression of existing technology or a new breakthrough?
a. If YES, explain the technology progression as you see it:_____________________
b. If NO, explain your thoughts on what the breakthrough might be: ____________
3. Does the explanation given by your classmate match your mental image of the Innovation?
a. If YES, explain the commonalities between your image and your classmate’s:_____________________
b. If NO, explain how your thoughts on differ: ____________
What we are trying to do here is establish a common language to discuss the Innovation. Dr’s D .H. and A.M. Rhodes of MIT’s System Engineering Advancement Research Initiative, define five aspects to a common language or taxonomy: Structural, Behavioral, Contextual, Temporal, and Perceptual.
For use all to properly describe and discuss our proposed innovations, we need to establish a common:
• Structural language to describe the components of the new system, so that we are all calling the same parts by the same names.
• Behavioral language to describe how the users will respond to the stimuli produced by the new system
• Contextual language to describe how the new system will fit into the lives of the users
• Temporal language to describe what happens when and how with the new system
• Perceptual language to describe how we see the device fitting the needs of the stakeholders
In this case, with my Full Immersion VR Suit-&-Floorpad, we need, in my opinion, to concentrate on the Structural, Behavioral and Contextual taxonomies first, and on the Temporal and Perceptual later, after we have established that we all understand WHAT (Structural) it is, HOW (Contextual) the users will experience the innovation and HOW it will fit into the users’ lives.
Discuss two forces that may support it.
Behavioral Forces will assist this process: In the course of our classes at the Institute for Advanced Studies, most of the members of this class are in the same “cohort” or starting group from over a year ago and, as such, are well known to each other and have built up a level of trust and common set of societal rules or community.
Contextual Forces will also assist in this process: All members of the class are working toward a common goal – completing the class successfully and with a good grade (hopefully an “A”) and so will work together to complete the operation.
Temporal Forces will assist in this process: All members are located in areas far removed from each other in distance and in time zone, so they are all logging in to participate in an asynchronous mode, but we all share the same time frame for completion – that set by the Instructor and the syllabus of the course.
Discuss two forces that may impede its success.
Political Forces will tend to work against the process: we are all human and have specific likes and dislikes, along with biases. Some of the class members may not like each other or have decided that the student is not worthy of co-operation. This can be the result of some personal interaction, expressed opinions or such. Lack of co-operation will definitely impede the process.
Cultural Forces could work against the process: the class includes a very diverse group – different races, nationalities, and age groups. The basic assumptions behind the communications of the participants could be far enough apart to cause misunderstandings. Think of this in the slang term “bad”, if someone does not know that “You so bad!” is a compliment, then it could be construed as an insult, and the interaction could further degrade from there!
How does open or closed collaboration in the Delphi or NGT process affect the results? Anonymity takes time, yet may reduce peer pressure or bias.
Both the Delphi and NGT allow for the referring of the participants and the addition of questions or comments from the monitoring researcher/s to assist in the understanding of their comments.
Anonymity removes all the cultural and societal context of the comments, while knowledge of the participant provides that context, so poor use of slang or misuse of some grammatical rules can be overlooked if it is known that the participant is an ESL or very young.
Contrary to that, anonymity does prevent known problems, personal dislikes or even feuds from carrying over into the research.
In my opinion, it depends both on the research area and the participants, If the area is small (relatively) and all major players are already known to each other, anonymity is not an issue. If the area is large and fractured, with known areas of major disagreement and political factions, then anonymity is a must. While most do not fall into either extreme, they posit a guide for the research methodology, providing a gradient of possibilities to assist in the decision of how to proceed.
Include a reference and link to supporting content in your post.
Linstone, H. A. And Turoff, M. (2002) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, Chapter 1. Retrieved on 5/4/11/ from http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch1.html
Yousuf, M. I. (2006) The Delphi Technique. Retrieved 5/4/11 from http://www.articlealley.com/article_112396_22.html

Second CS855 Post -

URL: http://www.ted.com/talks/annmarie_thomas_squishy_circuits.html
Title:AnnMarie Thomas: Hands-on science with squishy circuits


In this video, AnnMarie Thomas discusses using the two types of play dough (salt-based and sugar-based. Kids, especially young ones, love to build things and also love to use play dough to build things. Salt-based play dough conducts electricity, but sugar-based does not, so know we have conductors and insulators that, with a battery, can be used to create circuits - safely and inexpensively!

Two points from the video that our Think Tank should study:

1) There can be very good, very innovative "low tech" solutions to
"high tech" problems!
2) Do not forgot the hands-on aspect of learning and using:

* You tell me, I may learn.
* You show me, I may learn.
* I do it, I will learn!

First CS855 Post - Horizon's Report 2011 Report on Augmented Reality

     The 2011 Horizon Report is produced as a collaboration between The New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. It is the seventh in a series dating back to 2006. Included in this report is a a series of short reports on specific new media (mediums) and technology, with an analysis of their impact and a forecast of when the authors feel they will be accepted into  the "normal technologies" accepted and used daily by the majority of users.
     The short report that I wish to talk about is Augmented Reality (AR) (pages 16 - 19). The report itself is only about one-and-three-quarters pages long, followed by a page-and-a-quarter of links to sites giving examples of how AR is being used in education. The report puts AR in the two-to-three range for Time-to-Adoption.
    This report defines AR as adding a layer of text or picture information over the real world using computer software. In my mind, this might be better described as "Visually Augmented Reality", for, at least in this article, there is no mention of adding sounds, such as a travelogue or 'sound track', as part of the AR experience.
     Augmented Reality has been around for over thirty years, beginning with head-mounted displays (helmets, video goggles, etc.), but has moved recently to the Internet in the form of web-browser and smartphone applications.
     The report states that there are two basic modes of AR: one using Visual Metaphors (i.e., markers that can seen by a camera, either connected to the computer or the camera); and one using spatial positioning. The markers of the Visual Metaphor can be something as simple as a bar code on a card or in a book, or as complex as a face or building in the real world itself. Spatial Positioning AR makes use of a mobile device's (laptop, netbook, smartphone) GPS, compass and position/motion sensor information to determine its location while the camera looks at the objects nearby. These applications are called "gravimetric' applications and that title caused me some cognitive dissonance, for, as an old engineer at heart, "gravity and metric" do not mean "location" to me! But then, as Mrs. Malaprop always said, "A word means just what I want it to mean! Nothing more and nothing less!" So, "gravimetric applications" are AR applications that determine their location on the earth!
     Going back to the definitions, in the visual metaphor, the marker, for example a book, is held up to a computer with a camera, additional words or pictures appear on the computer screen on or around the live video feed of the camera. In the Spatial Positioning, the additional words or pictures show up on the screen of the mobile device, most often the screen of a smart phone with the 'camera' function turned on. No head-mounted screen is needed, for the screen and processing power of the portable device allows for easy use and display!
    The authors go on to explain that this has great relevance in education, gaming and general life. AR can make books and museums more interactive and less passive. Working backwards in the games, it allows the user to become a part of the game (a video avatar, for example), so, as with the Wii and the KNECT, user motions become the 'input interface' and the video camera adds the user into the game, i.e., instead of adding information to reality, adding information from the real world to the 'unreality' of the gaming landscape! In the third case, using a gravimetric application, locations in a city or a building can be scanned by the smartphone camera and additional information, pictures, or even movies can be added to the picture on the screen.
     As I am working on things in Haptics, or touch-based, systems, the article's discussion of an AR application in use by the J. Paul Getty Museum, where the visitors can explore its Augsburg Display Cabinet, a 17th century collector’s cabinet of wonders (or early museum of oddities or collections) without actually touching its delicate objects. If it were possible to add a haptic/tactile component, such as a glove, the users could not just look at the different objects, but FEEL them as well - feel their textures, weights, etc.!

Purpose of this Blog (At least for now)

This Blog is for my Doctoral class in Futuring and Innovation. I will be posting opinions on papers and books published on this subject and used within the class. Fell free to comment on my opinions, as opinions are just that, opinions - my thoughts on a particular subject! Sometimes I am an authority and other times I am merely a man out standing in a field (LOL), for my thoughts either come from or lead me out into left field!

First Post

LeMaster Mind Concepts is named after all the divisions of OCP in the Robocop movies, and it will be my thoughts and ideas and comments upon the world and the way it does, but maybe shouldn;t work!