Glass Insights: Input-Output

This post was originally featured on the Pristine blog.

This is the first in a series of posts that will illustrate how Glass is different from all of its computing predecessors: PCs, smartphones, and tablets. This series will cover every aspect of developing for Glass: programming and technical details, UX and ergonomics, use cases, and more. Glass is a unique platform, and everyone is still trying to understand the nuances of the strengths, limitations, and opportunities. We'd like to contribute to that open and ongoing conversation.

To kick things off, we're going to discuss what is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of Glass: how the user interacts with the device.

Glass, like any computer, requires input, and delivers some output. The input options for Glass are extremely limited:

1. Trackpad on the side

2. Voice

3. Accelerometer/gyro

4. Camera

5. Winking (hacked only; not supported out of the box)

Glass is not conducive towards interactivity. The more interactive the application, the less desirable it will be to use. Physically "using" Glass is simply a pain. Try connecting to Wi-Fi, and you'll know exactly what I mean.

Why is Glass so painful to use? Swiping along a trackpad on the side of your head is unnatural. In the pre-Glass era, how many times did you rub your temple?

But what about voice? Google's voice-to-text technology is by all accounts the best in the world; most technology enthusiasts and bloggers agree that it's quite accurate. The problem with relying on voice - especially for any command longer than 2-3 words - is that the opportunities for error multiply exponentially. Every word is a potential point of failure. If Google's transcription service messes up one word, the entire command can be rendered effectively useless (that's why Siri attempts to account for transcription errors). When a voice command is rendered useless, it takes at least a few seconds to reset and try again depending on the exact context. Per Google's Glass development guidelines, content on Glass must be timely. One of the defining characteristics of Glass is that you don't have to spend 5 seconds to reach into your pocket and unlock your phone. If it takes longer than 5 seconds to initiate an action, then you might as well have pulled your smartphone out of your pocket. There are exceptions - surgeons in the OR wouldn't be able to use their hands - but generally speaking, failing a voice command means that you could've and should've used your phone instead.

The accelerometer and gyro are useful to wake Glass from sleep, but I'm having a tough time visualizing apps making use of those functions for any form of meaningful engagement. The human neck isn't design to move and bend all that much; accelerometer and gyro based movements need to have significant triggers. Glass defaults to 30 degree head tilts to wake from sleep to prevent ambient waking. Developers can use the accelerator and gyro, but they must do so conservatively. They cannot be used interactively.

The camera provides by far the most raw input data, and thus holds the most potential. However, given Glass's screen size, positioning relative to the human eye, and the challenges of implementing intelligent, dynamic object recognition, the camera is probably a long ways off from becoming the defining input mechanism for most Glass apps. Trulia's real estate Glass app uses the camera in conjunction with GPS and the compass to show you data about the real estate you're looking at. This is a methodology I'm sure dozens of other apps will employ: using camera + GPS + compass to overlay data from a database. However, because of Glass's screen size and positioning relative to the eye, the camera can't deliver a lot of interactivity. It can feed lots of data to a database in the cloud, but it can't provide for interactive apps, yet.

Winking will provide for lots of fun apps. It's a great trigger event. Coupled with other types of context - voice, camera, and location - it could provide for some unique forms of interactivity, though I'm not exactly sure what they'd look like. No matter the app, I don't think anyone wants to wink all day.

In the near term, voice will be the most compelling and useful input mechanism. Most commands will be brief to reduce chance of failure. Glass devs that are hacking Glass to run native Android APKs are already using voice to navigate their apps. We are too. It works quite well. "Next", "previous", and "lookup [x]" work 99% of the time in reasonably controlled environments. At a bar, forget about it, but in a clinic or hospital, even with people talking nearby, voice is a compelling input.

Longer term, I expect the camera to become the most powerful input. It provides such an incredible amount of context and data. If Google decides to implement a larger screen that's more aligned with the human eye, the camera could become the defining input mechanism for most apps. Meta-View and AtheerLabs are already working on that dream. We'll see if Google decides to go that route. Given that Google's been position Glass as a consumer device, I have my doubts, but perhaps they'll shift in Google's product strategy, or an eyeware computing hardware portfolio for different use cases.

The other very promising input mechanism for Glass is the MYO Armband. It can mitigate one of Glass's greatest weaknesses: limited inputs. MYO delivers a very elegant input solution that complements two of Glass's three unique traits: hands free and always there. We're excited to integrate the MYO armband into Pristine's apps.

Choice be Damned

This post was originally featured on the Pristine blog.

The first PCs could do anything. There were no restrictions. They were sold as disparate hardware components that had to be assembled and programmed by the customer. They were completely and totally free to be modified in any way at the hardware and software layers.

Over time, computers have become increasingly locked down. Through the 90s, it was still relatively easy to open a computer and change out just about any hardware component. Similarly, it was really easy to wipe the OS and load any software stack. But mobile computing has changed things. I remember that as a child, I hated laptops because I couldn't open them up and change out the parts myself. I remember thinking how incredibly stupid it was that every OEM was designing custom, non-rectangular mother boards. 10 years later, I've come to learn that they had good reasons.

Mobile devices are fundamentally different from desktop bound computers. Desktop bound computers physically separate the computer from the human computer interaction (HCI) mechanisms - they keyboard, mouse, speakers, and display - and are inherently limited by battery. This separation allows for modular, standardized innovation within each major hardware and software component. But this doesn't hold true for mobile devices. Mobile devices are forced to make thousands of compromises and design decisions because the physical, power, heat, mobility, battery, configurability, repairability, and software design parameters cannot be isolated. Each of these features pulls against the others. Although it's not a 100% accurate or complete representation, these compromises can be thought of along a spectrum, with power and size at one extreme, and mobility and efficiency at the other.

Over the past 10 years, as we've witnessed the proliferation of mobile devices, convention has triumphed over configuration. There're no signs that this trend will slow. Computers are getting smaller, and smaller computers simply don't accommodate the level of configurability that larger computers do for myriad reasons: smaller components, design and engineering compromises, extremely complex assembly driven by aesthetic design needs, and smaller screens to name a few.

Google Glass and eyeware computing represent the next frontier in mobile computing. These computers are even smaller and lighter than smartphones because they have to be - humans cannot rest more than a few ounces the nose. Glass has been designed to be feather-light so that it can be worn all day without any discomfort.

The Glass Mirror API also reflects the movement towards convention over configuration. The Mirror API is quite limited in what it allows for. Luckily, Google is opening up a native Android development framework - the Glass Development Kit (GDK) - that will be far more powerful than the Mirror API. Even still, the GDK will be limited by Glass's inherent hardware shortcomings. Users will not be willing to configure anything on Glass because configuration requires usernames, passwords, accounts, addresses, selecting items out of lists, etc. Sure, there are passable work arounds for some of these problems via social network integration and other tricks, but even navigating social media menus will be a pain on Glass. Glass apps simply don't accommodate on-device configuration. Google realized that sometime ago, hence the MyGlass app. There will be opportunities to configure Glass apps via smartphones and web interfaces, but the scope of those configurations will pale in comparison to modern smartphone and desktops OSes, which offer hundreds of settings and switches.

What does all of this mean? There will be right and wrong design decisions. And they will be delightfully (or painfully) clear. Apps that won't work really won't work, and apps that work will really shine.

Glass devs, you better use your best judgement. Don't let users configure much of anything, especially on the device. Luckily, small screens don't require nearly as much design and thought expertise as smartphones, tablets, or PCs, simply because the artistic canvas is dramatically smaller to work with. Even still, I'm sure we'll see a hoard of consumer facing apps that fail to account for the fact that people don't actually want to interact with Glass. It's a pain.

You Don't Need Instagram on Your Face

This post was originally featured on the Pristine blog.

Most of the media's response towards Google Glass has been negative. Very negative. Sure, there are people who can't envision another day of their lives without it, like Robert Scoble in the shower - but most people find the privacy concerns to be extremely nerve racking, and uncomfortable, and they perceive very little benefit to compensate for that.

They're right.

You don't need Instagram on your face. Or Facebook. Or Twitter. Or Pintrest. Or Evernote. Or Gmail. Or even Google Maps. The fact of the matter is, your smartphone provides an extremely robust and capable platform to interact with these services. Sure, you could interact with them on Google Glass, but really? Do you need to? No. Your life is just fine even though those apps are "limited" by a piece of multitouch glass in your pocket.

On the other hand, there are lots of professionals that could use Google Glass: doctors, surgeons, architects, construction workers, factory workers, warehouse workers, technicians, and drivers (at least until Google's self driving cars kill their jobs), to name a few.

Google has designed and marketed Glass as a consumer device. They want everyone in the world to wear it all the time. They have a tough battle ahead of them. Even as a Glass enthusiast and developer, I find it hard to believe anyone other than geeks will wear this device in public (but it sure is fun to be the only one in Austin that has it!).

I've argued that eyeware computers should be analyzed along a spectrum: transparency. The most transparent they are, the more consumer facing and socially acceptable they are. Eyeware computers cannot disrupt human eye-to-eye contact; it's too fundamental to basic human communication. You can't walk around the street, or for that matter your house, wearing Oculus Rift. But you can do anything shy of swimming in a pool with Glass.

A few months ago, I used to think that Glass would never be usable for robust enterprise applications because it was designed with consumer limitations in mind. Now, I look at the situation the other way around. Professionals are people too. They don't want to feel awkward wearing a device. Although eyeware computers are inherently awkward in certain ways, Glass does a phenomenal job of reducing that awkwardness as much as possible. The hardware is phenomenally well done and out of the way. It really is, as Google describes it, "there when you need it, and out of sight when you don't."

Atheer and Meta-View present incredible opportunities for insanely awesome enterprise applications. But they are very intimidating. You have to block off your entire face to use them. Very few people will be willing to use such a device without already being comfortable using Glass first.

In the consumer market, I predict that there will be very few successful Glass-first apps. Many existing services will be extended onto Glass, but there won't be many successful consumer apps that are Glass-first. Sure, there will be lots of apps for hobbies, and some of them will see moderate success, but I doubt there will be a single $100M consumer business that is Glass-first.

The enterprise application opportunities are tremendous. Employers will pay for hardware, software, and services if they make their employees more effective and efficient at their jobs. Glass can support an enormous number of job functions.

Glass developers, follow the money.

Understanding Social Responses to Glass

I want to learn to predict the future. It's incredibly difficult. The majority of people who are paid millions of dollars to predict the future fail most of the time. Chris Dixon, general partner at Andreesen Horrowitz, suggested that the best way to hone the skill is to observe past predictions with 20-20 hindsight, and understand why they were right or wrong.

I spent about 5 hours last week hitting on women while wearing Glass. And I've read a lot about other people's experiences with Glass. I have very small pool of data, but enough to lay out a hypothesis on how and why people will react to Glass in public.

Context is king in eyeware computing. I was able to discern that fact without wearing Glass. It didn't occur to me that the same principle holds on the other side of Glass.

This guy spent his day at Disney Land wearing Glass. He thought he would be bombarded by kids and families wanting to know what it was. He prepared for it to happen. It didn't.

I spent no fewer than 15 hours walking through the streets of Manhattan this week during the day wearing Glass. New Yorkers are known for walking quickly, and not taking time to socialize in the street. They've got places to be. During those 15 hours, about 15 people walked up to me to ask about Glass. I too expected more people to ask.

Last week, I hit on women while wearing Glass. The inquiry rate skyrocketed among men and women alike. Strangers were approaching me every 5 minutes between sets. For every person that walked up to ask, ten didn't have the courage to. I caught dozens people staring at from across the bar, and overheard all kinds of mixed grumblings like "Are those the Google Glasses?", "What are those?" and "OMG he has Glass!". Glass commanded the attention of those who did and didn't know what it was.

Based on the anecdotes above, here's my my hypothesis on how the general public reacts to Glass: if people are in a social setting where it's ok to walk up to strangers and say hello, they'll immediately form an opinion, usually at one end of the spectrum or the other; Glass is a polarizing device. But if people are in a setting where it's not appropriate to talk to strangers, they rarely notice or care that someone's wearing the device.

I guess I'm not as special as I thought Glass would make me. Not during the day anyways.

Flirting with Glass

I'm a social animal. I like tinkering with things, watching the reaction, and learning from observations.

In five years, when Glass and Glass-like technology is commonplace, I will look back on May - December of 2013 as the time when I was among the rare Glass Explorer class. For the next 6 months, I am the .0000001%.

It's my responsibility to abuse this privilege every single day while I can. I have an opportunity to conduct social experiments with Glass and learn things that I could have never learned before. I'll learn more about human psychology regarding first impressions, being told "no", and overcoming negativity in the next six months than most people will learn in a lifetime. Shame on me if I don't capitalize on this opportunity.

Last week in NYC, I hit on dozens of women while wearing Glass for the first time. The results were inline with my expectations. About 80% of women were initially quite turned off by the device. I didn't discriminate by age or appearance: I talked to college girls, cougars, groups of 2-8 women, yuppies, executives, women in formal night gowns, hipsters, and women that I wouldn't normally hit on if I was sincerely looking for a date.

Most of the 80% immediately assumed I was recording them. I wasn't. I wouldn't. I respect the difference between casual social experiments and violating people's privacy.

Of the 80%, I was able to convince about 25% of them that Glass wasn't as creepy or weird as they initially thought. Those conversations were the most fun of the evening because I "won." I witnessed a change of heart over the course of 10 minutes. That's the ultimate display of salesmanship and perseverance. Persuading someone of a vastly different opinion that your opinion is right is incredibly satisfying, even if there's no financial benefit.

About 20% of women found the device to be quite intriguing. They wanted to know more about it and try it on. I let them. Everyone thought it was one of the coolest thing they had ever used.

For the immediate future, the next 2-3 weeks, I don't expect these ratios to change, even in Austin (relative to Manhattan). As more Glass Explorers receive their units and people have a chance to see and understand what the device is, perhaps the ratios will change. I'm inclined to believe that people will come to accept Glass more over time: once people know that you can't record when the screen is off, hopefully the severe and immediate negative reactions will subside.

Cheers to learning from strangers.