Category: Uncategorized

Augmented reality can be used to provide services in many ways, as we’ve seen in class this week. From fixing cars, to training military, police, or firefighters– augmented reality should prove to be incredibly useful as we move into the future. Perhaps one day doctors will use AR during surgeries. I can also see a future where 15 year olds take Drivers Ed through AR technologies.

Through class, I’ve realized that AR is different from VR in that it provides insight on actual reality. Virtual reality takes users and players into simulated worlds. AR works off the basis off the real world. This makes it much more helpful and useful to society. Whereas VR is seen more as a gaming platform, AR could be used for the public good. Despite reading the articles online, it took real-life examples for me to realize that there is a difference between the two technologies. Although they are obviously related (I guess AR grew out of VR?), AR has taken virtual reality and applied it to everyday life.

Its strange to think about, but we are moving into a society that will one day be dominated by technologies such as these. And that’s a little scary. Designers will one day have to incorporate these technologies into the media they create. We aren’t that far off from it, either. It could be as soon as a few decades away, which means that in my lifetime, and certainly in my children’s, the world will look like a very different place. I wonder if some of the mystery of life will be taken away if we have a constant stream of information superimposed on reality? Car windshields, buffet lines, and classrooms will all have digital text and information displayed to provide people with as much information as possible about what they are looking at.

I can’t say exactly how we will incorporate AR into the future of design, but I know that it will be done. I think the most important thing is for us to remain open to the changes– since we really don’t have a choice. Its somewhat intimidating and most definitely life altering, but technologies like AR are only destined to grow and further develop as we learn more about how to use them and incorporate them into our ever day life.

1. What are some ways Augmented Reality is used in every day life?  Do I see AR on a regular basis and not even know it?

Based on our video chat today with Whurley, augmented reality can be seen in every day life.  Examples given were the ability to take pictures of bar codes or building with a smart phone and information for the place will be brought up on your phone.  This is such a simple, yet useful idea to many so I really think that this could take off.

2.  How can I use Augmented Reality in my interactive work?

According to Whurley, AR can be used in interactive work but it is expensive and not quite effective just yet since many aren’t even sure of exactly what it is.  I think that everyone needs to know exactly what AR is and its purpose before it will become more mainstreamed in homes and can be used in interactive work more often.

3.  Is Augmented Reality the future for gaming systems?  It seems like it would be a likely direction but how feasible is this?

The Kinect is actually a form of AR, so it really is the future of gaming systems.  I’ve yet to use the Kinect but it does seem pretty interesting that the console knows the person standing in front of it.  I think that this concept can only be taken further in the future.

1. What are some ways Augmented Reality is used in every day life?  Do I see AR on a regular basis and not even know it?

2.  How can I use Augmented Reality in my interactive work?

3.  Is Augmented Reality the future for gaming systems?  It seems like it would be a likely direction but how feasible is this?

After reading about Augmented Reality, my questions are:

1.) How is AR mostly different from virtual worlds?

2.) Are people more likely to get into an AR game than in a virtual world game like Second Life?

3.) Does AR blur the lines of reality vs. alternative less than virtual worlds for users?

1.The author of the augmented reality article says that augmented reality surpassed virtual worlds. I want to know how they have surpassed them and what’s really different between the two, because just from their titles they sound very similar.

2. Which aspects of augmented reality were derived from virtual worlds/reality (gaming and such)? And which came first? Did we just larn one before the other, but augmented reality was actually created first?

3. How is augmented reality affecting or how will it affect social networking and online relationships?

1. What are some ways we can use augmented reality to provide some sort of public service to society?

2. How do virtual reality and augmented reality differ? What features are taken from virtual reality and which came first?

3. What are some ways that we, as designers, can incorporate AR into the different media that we create?

My first question was:
For my research project, I studied children’s interaction with the media. In these websites, we are reading about people have virtual worlds with their churches. Will this stretch out into schools? How will children be affected by virtual reality, specifically in an educational environment?

I think that this is entirely possible with all the new online college and even high schools. We already have homeschooling for elementary schools and it’s really only a few steps away to add in virtual elementary schools. This can be both positive and negative depending on the parental supervision and the motivation behind the schooling. Some kids may work better from home and at their own pace and be more productive, whereas other children may just goof off and play instead of studying.

My next question was: What makes virtual worlds a new idea, separate from other digital environments like video games? How can I relate this to how children will relate to media in the upcoming years?

Virtual environments are very similar to the idea of video games but are taken a step further. Virtual reality is putting imagination into action. In video games, the user becomes the little icon character inside the game, only in their mind. In a virtual reality world, the user’s imagination is not put to work as much and the user is simply given the world around them to react in. This world is customizable, yes, but the imagination is always more infinite in it’s scenarios than a game could provide.
Some would argue, which is better? I think that virtual reality is certainly the newer, more fascinating one right now. But video games had the same wonder and awe when they first came out too.

My third question was:
Is the virtual reality world revolution going to bring about positive or negative affects in children’s interactions with media? Maybe both?

I think this answer is pretty obvious. And that is that with all types of media there is going to be both postivie and negative consequences. It all comes down to the healthy use of or unhealthy abuse of the content. That is up to the user and (depending on age group) the user’s parental supervision. The story that we watched in class about the 16 year old boy so addicted to online gaming that his mother is “scared”, to me, is just ridiculous. There is no way I would just let me son take over and tell me how much time he’s going to spend on the internet and gaming. If I own the house, the computer he’s using, and him (legally- by responsibility purposes), then he will follow my rules. A 16 yr old is still a child in my opinion and needs the continued guidance that a child would receive. Therefore, I feel that this is the same for other forms of virtual reality. An adult is responsible for his or her use or abuse of it. And a parent is likewise responsible for his or her child.

1. The authors state it is “shared interests that provide a reason for people to come together on the internet, while networks of practice provide the technological means to share and create practices,” could this be a definition of media convergence and how the virtual world has contributed in many ways to the perceptions of reality?

2. Are the visual mediums that provide a sense of place, space and physiological embodiment only hindering users from experiencing actual reality because users find comfort in their own home from the “real life” virtual world they see on a computer screen or television?

3. Due to the virtual world, is there a separation from imagination and reality anymore? Are these games “just games” anymore?

The video that we watched on Wednesday briefly discussed the online Second Life stores of large clothing companies that eventually failed. Are there any examples of real-world companies that have successfully mastered the MMOG economy in terms of selling goods through them?

I am confused as to the type of learning that the authors of the first article are exploring. I do understand that learning is not referred to in an academic sense but I’m still unclear as to the importance of this type of learning as it relates to intelligence? Could you clarify this for me?

The act of creating an avatar and conversely the virtual world in which that avatar lives is a customization act, but will the people participating in such acts be open to personalization. Do companies using personalization techniques to intrude on the virtual world undermine the sense of agency that is afforded through MMOG?

After going through and reading all of the readings for the week and pulling from topics we discussed in class, I honestly did not realize how much the gaming industry has touched our generation and the military. In the movie digital nation that we watched in class today, they discussed how digital technology has been a huge cultural change for the MIlitary and the defense division. The technology in the military is quite advanced and for good reason, it needs to be. However, it is interesting that the defense division needs to be technologically advanced for the main reason of keeping up with other countries. Is the technology we use because we really need it or is it just because we must keep up with the technology of other countries so we are not considered weak or inferior. Especially with the case of video simulation is it really needed if the military can be trained in the field or through actual field exercises.

1. It was interesting to read about the early emergence of video gaming from its use by military and defense operations. My question is: Could video game simulation help with military tactics or does it just portray a false reality that soldiers prepare themselves for if the game does not effectively portray a particular environment?

In my opinion, I think video game simulation in training our military personal may be good for imagery but not for actual field training. These simulations portray an environment the soldiers will be in but training using video controllers and not real guns is only hindering an individual from getting real experience with a gun. I am not saying the military only uses video game simulation because that is obviously not true but is it really necessary to have these simulations if they end up only being a game for the soldiers and not an effective means of portraying a particular environment? I guess that depends on the soldier.

2. The authors state that the goal for these military video simulations is perfectly simulated human interaction and the current result is a fairly narrow and reductive representation of human behavior, therefore, should the video games include many different types of interfaces to engage the user better? Or is simplicity the best when trying to portray a certain type of environment where content retention is more important?

One thing I am unsure of and did not get a concrete answer from the reading is that  video game simulation seems to be interactive but are they interactive through only one interface medium? Are the users able to touch the screen, use a controller to control actions, allow for options in the simulations or does it only allow the soldier to explore what they are told to explore? I think if the military is going to use video simulation so religiously then the users should be allowed to choose there path through it because most of the time in combat situations, individual decision making is going to be imperative, not leadership orders.

3. Do many of these military simulation games walk a thin line when it comes to media ethics or does that really matter when trying to prepare soldiers for the worse to come?

I think in the case of video simulation for the military, media ethics is brought to a whole new level because they are preparing for the worst and should be shown the worst. Although, some of the things our soldiers see in war can not be simulated in video because emotional responses are much different. Video can help with mental preparation but it will never replace the emotional situations they will face. Media ethics is an issue in the gaming industry but does it matter, people are going to do what they want to do, regardless of restriction.