In an earlier post I discussed some of the difficulties we face in understanding augmented reality as a result of its many conflicting definitions. Fortunately, these definitions generally agree on a few elements: technology, mediation, interactive experiences, combining the non-digital and the digital. Unfortunately, just when we might feel like we’re able to comfortably describe augmented … Read more
Lately, augmented reality has been making a lot of headlines in the tech world. This week, for instance, Microsoft revealed its HoloLens, a visual headset that allows people to interact with and manipulate complex, projected visuals. In a promo for the HoloLens, a woman wearing the headset customizes a Volvo car before buying it, building it up from the nuts and bolts with gestures as simple as pressing her thumb and forefinger together. It isn’t quite the tech we see Robert Downey Jr. playing with in Iron Man’s workshop, but it’s pretty close.
For the past several weeks, I have been researching augmented reality with the aim of identifying some of its distinguishing features—“distinguishing” being the operative and tricky word here.
Pardon the spatial-rhetorics wordplay here, but I am increasingly getting the sense that the topic at the center of this locative media research group—augmented reality—feels simultaneously like unfamiliar and familiar territory.
I have spent a substantial amount of time researching and reflecting on locative media, especially thanks to my time in Dr. Casey Boyle’s Fall 2014 course “Spatial Rhetorics and Locative Media.” There we’d often discuss the ways in which mobile technologies affect perceptions of embodiment and place, and, as might be expected, smartphones played a major part in these discussions.