Say It 'Aint So!

Now I'm not one typically to complain about the evolution of our everyday gadgetry, but a touchscreen DSLR!? This just makes no sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the applicability of a touchscreen as a supplementary input, but I touchscreen alone cannot encompass all input features necessary on high-end digital imaging devices. That which makes a DSLR so much different than your typical point and shoot (aside from a much larger sensor) is the viewfinder. With the viewfinder accuracy is upheld - which is of utmost importance in photography.

To add a touchscreen input, would mean we would need to sacrifice using the viewfinder as much, or develop some alternative that allows us to view the image and use input controls simultaneously. If such technologies were to be employed in a vastly different design (such as the concept I posted a few days ago) then I could see this as a viable inclusion. But without some very necessary structural changes, the incorporation is in essence pushing the evolution of the device backward.

Don't get me wrong, with or without such technologies pros will continue to use the device with phenomenal results, but the growing population of amateur photographers will find and use easier, and less accurate methods in which to take their photography. Granted I do see such technology as a good stepping stone from your typical point-and-shoot, I find it more consumer-friendly option than a true improvement in design.

Though haptic feedback is not always necessary, as the iPhone has showed us, there are limitations - particularly if we look at gaming for instance. As successful as games are on the iPhone, it is the type of game allowable by design that constricts these games. Yes, buttons are a thing of the past, something that one day will probably be replaced with fewer moving parts, meaning fewer complications in the future. But feedback in touch is still needed; we cannot remove the sense of touch by compensating more visuals. There comes a time and point where all of our sensing should be accounted for in digital design.

Digital doesn't mean only visual, yet for some reason it seems that many companies are migrating towards these designs - given slimmer form factors and customization abilities. Yet the need for haptic feedback remains!

I did a little research of haptics, and it seems a number of concepts are currently being developed by various companies to combat this problem. I will be posting a new entry with an overview and thoughts on the issue in the near future.

AR (Augmented Reality)

I've been trying to avoid mentioning this topic given its quite overwhelming publicity over the past few months, yet alas, I found myself reading a quite interesting cover story from Nikkei Electronics Asia via Tech-On. I was considering going into a drawn out ramble about what AR is and its many uses, but figured instead I would summarize it quickly, and discuss a quite interesting point made in this article. AR is basically the layering of digital information into our sensed worlds (ie touch, taste, sight, etc.).

Augmented Reality is in a way a midpoint between reality and VR (virtual reality), yet what seems to make it truly stand apart and drive its adoption in the years to come is its "ratio of real versus virtual information." As we all know, VR never truly caught on. Sure its a pretty enjoyable novelty, yet the need to create entire worlds from scratch to engulf the user in this world, and similarly leaving convince the user to leave one's own world behind has proven quite a daunting task to be fulfilled in all instances.

Instead AR is attempting to incorporate itself in our present world.

It actually makes quite a bit of sense when one realizes the initial applications for AR were to be used as replacements for tangible directions.

AR will succeed with VR failed, for it opens up a number of new doorways into altering our digital lives, while leaving our real lives intact. In essence AR is just replacing the interface. No longer will we have to push buttons to change the channel, instead make hand motions, or look in certain areas, or push imaginary buttons, or heck just speak the button.

Augmented Reality is just that, an augmentation of our current reality. As the internet has been so widely adopted, there still remains that line between our reality, and the reality of our internet worlds of our computer LCDs. Yet as technology continually progress, this divide will slowly become obsolete.

It isn't something that will occur overnight, but it is through AR that many of these transitions will occur. Think about it, what need is there for our tangible digital devices when we can incorporate them in some standalone augmentation of our lives. Televisions could be projected onto our glasses, controlled via voice command. Simultaneously phone calls, music, and shopping could all be integrated into a similar central manner.

As I've discussed before, this centralized device is increasingly becoming the "cloud" - ever-pushing our wireless lives.

Vanish

I highly suggest reading this article in Wired Magazine:


Evan Ratliff Tried to Vanish: Here's What Happened.

To summarize the story, for all those that wish to forgo 20 minutes of technology filled-manhunt-awesomeness, a writer by the name of Evan Ratliff challenged readers of Wired Magazine to find him within one month. The winner was to win $5,000.00. Ratliff told no one where he was going, gave himself a new identity, fake credit card, fake business cards, sold his car, and completely reinvented his life. Yet unlike the typical hide out in the woods story - Ratliff chose to live a new life as a new person. That which made this story most interesting, is that he continued to use technology we use everyday - ie Facebook and Twitter.

The story takes you on his very well planned escape - involving the use of double-masked IP addresses and lots of untraceable gift cards,and some very well placed misdirection.

The story itself is quite interesting, yet the resounding difficulty in becoming lost in our technology-filled world remains. Given a few faults of Ratliff, and a quite large group of online contributors he was eventually found.

It's somewhat frightening though. How easy it was for people to dig up information about Ratliff. In a matter of days they knew everything from his food allergies and soccer interests, to recent credit card purchases and license plate numbers. In such an information driven world it is becoming so hard to disassociate yourself from exactly that - your information.

Its ironic really. Upon the Internet's introduction and growth, we've been reminded of it's anonymity, yet is anything that private anymore?

Ratliff explored an interesting side-effect of our technology driven lifestyles. And though I'm not in any rush to absolutely disappear, its a bit disconcerting knowing just how difficult it really would be.

Video Chat, Coming to a Phone Near You?

Much media attention (well at least in the tech world) has recently surfaced in regards to a front-facing camera, or lack thereof, on the iPhone 3GS. The debates that follow bring up a good question. Is video chatting on our phones, like in those classic sci-fi movies, coming in the near future, or is it a niche market never to see mainstream use?

Initially, I thought, sure. Of course it will be adopted. I mean, why wouldn't it be? New technologies are often adopted, and video streaming capabilities and corresponding compression codecs are constantly being improved. Yet the resounding question still remains... would I use it?

iChat, a video chat messaging client provided on all Mac's for quite a few year now, has yet to truly take over communication in computing. I have iChat and Skype, I've used video chats before, yet honestly, there seem to be far more instances in which I would rather not use it than use it.

Of course I would love those face to face conversations with loved ones and friends, but on the phone with the At&t guy?! When I'm in my underwear? After I just woke up? Etc. The list of circumstances in which I would prefer not to use it are obviously quite large.. thus reiterating that resounding question... would I use it?

If it were to become commonplace, would we not feel as though we had to use it, even if we wished we didn't have to?

As technology progresses, it seems that most people are gravitating towards efficiency. Widespread tweets to all your friends about something or another. Sure individual phone calls or made, yet even those are being replaced by quicker, more efficient texts.

I'll be honest, I would much rather e-mail one of my professors than speak to them face to face. And definitely much more than talking to them on the phone!

So would this technology be adopted?.... hmmm...

After much thinking, I feel as though it is not on the immediate horizon. I do imagine it will eventually be adopted, yet possibly in a manner different than the one-on-one conversations we are expectant of. Instead I would imagine it would be used in large scale conference situations in which "real-time" interaction is optimal. I could see such technology being incorporated into a real-time chat medium in social networking utilities such a facebook.

Regardless, I think the technology is coming... and will come... but in the next iPhone iteration? Probably not. Do we have the technology? Well... yes... (providing At&t's network was as stable as Verizon's).. but do we have the medium from which to use it as efficiently as we oh-so-desire? No... not yet anyway...

Wikipedia

Along the topic of free knowledge. I sought out the largest database of everything imaginable - Wikipedia (as of this writing - 14,00,000 articles and ever-increasing have been published making it the largest encyclopedic work ever compiled.) Wikipedia's motive is as follows:

Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge: all of topics covered by a conventional print encyclopedia plus any other "notable" (therefore verifiable by published sources) topics, which are permitted by unlimited disk space.

Such a goal, though seemingly impossible to meet, could not have been even considered just over 10 years ago.

Yet now, honestly, I search for pretty much everything on Wikipedia. And yes, though there is a questionable accuracy to articles, a number of studies have proven its reliability to be similar to that of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Regardless, how one argues for or against the site's reliability - Wikipedia has vastly enables the sharing of knowledge. It is an ever growing community of shared facts and ideas. There are thousands of discussion boards in which editors clarify ideas, revise posts, etc.

Wikipedia is becoming a knowledge base, that I image will one day compete with that of our schools. Heck, as of now I probably look for homework help about 50% of the time through Wikipedia articles.

As this knowledge base continues to grow and be refined I start to question, how exactly is the perception of knowledge going to change. Before, those highly held in society had a seemingly endless stream of facts in their heads. But with the world's information instantaneously at our finger tips, what need is there to memorize everything?

Instead I expect a gradual shift in the education process. No longer is it so important what you know, as it is what you can know, how fast you can learn it, and how fast you can adapt and incorporate these changes.

On a final note, and horrifying as it may seem, I imagine that as much as Wikipedia is a growing contribution of shared knowledge - it is exactly that which it claims - "a summary of all human knowledge." When our civilization is gone one day, will Wikipedia be our Rosetta Stone?

Royal Society Papers Available Online

The Royal Society, the worlds oldest science academy, marks its 350th anniversary in 2010. In celebration, the society has devised a quite monumental contribution in the form of an interactive timeline website called "Trailblazing." Trailblazing gives one the opportunity to explore major contributions in science and its corresponding publications by the society over the past 350 years. Yet as a perk to all knowledge-hungry explorers out there, the Royal Society has made available 60 monumental published works in history. And when I mean monumental I mean a digital copy of the original contributed article on Isaac newton's theory on light, Benjamin Franklin's experiments with a kite in an electrical storm, the development of Penicillin by Alexander Fleming!

The availability of such inspiring works, such incredible revelations in thought, is quite exciting! But more so than interesting, this society is breaking through a huge and ongoing wall in the sharing of knowledge.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why emerging technologies are often kept private under layers of patent law, yet once these patents are up, should the ideas not be available to everyone? Of course, there will always be conflict in this debate, yet this small website exemplifies a unifying dream I hope comes someday.

With the dawn of the internet age knowledge has no longer become that which is unatainable without thousands of dollars, connections, and a high IQ, but instead something readily available to anyone with a computer and a web browser.

Yet in this transition we often find major faults - particularly questionable accuracy in information, necessitated degrees, etc.

This website represents that ever-present march towards a fully graspable knowledge base. Sure many people could care less what exactly Fleming said about his new found antibiotic, but I image many others would find his real words inspiring.

Everyone needs inspiration from time to time.

"The Edge of Science and Art"

As with all technology, that which makes it most exciting, is often times an application outside that which was originally expected. For example in this rendering, by paleoartist Victor Deak. Deak uses various 3d modeling programs to bring the skulls anthropologists see to life. some of his most recent work may be found in the "Becoming Human" documentary - recently aired on PBS.

As Deak put it, "they look realer to me... for a couple seconds, people might say, 'What's that a photo of? Where'd you get that picture? There's that moment of belief when they're not looking at it as a painting or sculpture, but as a living thing."

Deak was able to combine his passion for visualization and animation into his working environment as a paleontologist. In doing so he has created a career for himself that continues to make very important contributions - yet now these contributions are heard not only throughout academia, but also seen by every day people. Deak's work is important, for the imaging techniques he currently uses will probably hold a founding basis for craniofacial reconstruction renderings. In improving such accuracies in computer-aided imaging we may get that much closer to truly "seeing" the past.

Such technologies could prove insurmountably helpful, not just in anthropology, but in all reconstructive means - such as in identification purposes, biometrics, historical databasing, etc.

Source