Thoughts on Craig’s chapter six

Reading Response Week of 10/15-10/17

Craig, Understanding Augmented Reality (Chapter 6 – Interaction in Augmented Reality) and Costello, Multimedia Foundations (Chapter 6  – Interface Design and Usability)

I’d like to focus this week’s post on Craig’s chapter. He makes the following statement on page 192 in regard to AR activities and capabilities: “As this type of interaction becomes more common, and as the virtual world becomes the real world, people will begin to accept those capabilities as normal, and potentially be bothered when those types of interactions aren’t available, even in the real world” (2013). I question Craig’s statement here; is he suggesting that AR expectations lead a user to have unrealistic expectations of or within the real world? If so, how is AR different than violent music, television and/or video games? Can AR be that powerful that it denotes one’s observations within the real world, discrediting what we know for what could be, causing people to confuse the fraudulent for the real or vise versa?

With this statement, Craig suggests that AR requires its user to suspend his disbelief in order to fully immerse in the virtual world and the technology acting as the filter making that world possible. As mentioned, this similar strategy is used across industries and specifically seen in film. In children’s film, audiences are presented with talking animals, flying humans and floating houses. In science fiction, laws of gravity are given little (if any) consideration, extra-terrestrial life walks the Earth and Mars Attacks! (with some added comedy). The differences between what these mediums (e.g. film, music and video games) depict and what’s seen in the real world is the viewer’s perception. Viewers discern right from wrong, fact from fiction, etc. This statement, or ideal, however, has been debated for decades by theorists and critics in communication, sociology and related.

Also within Chapter 6, Craig (2013) uses photos to illustrate a child’s interaction with technology. In Figures 6.4 and 6.5 he features a child trying to enlarge an image on a traditional book or television screen as one would with an Apple device. I too recall a similar story:

One afternoon in the post office, I witnessed a child’s fascination with the Disney stamp collection as pictured in large-scale form on the wall. The child trotted over to the wall and immediately began his attempt to enlarge the images with his fingers — after several failed attempts, his mother informed him “it doesn’t work like that.” The mother picked up the disappointed, confused child and they existed the post office.  

As Craig (2013) mentions, this is no longer an uncommon tale. Children of today’s generation expect things to operate in a particular fashion. After all, they are the iGeneration.

There was one additional section I flagged in this chapter. On page 199, Craig writes about navigation in augmented reality. His methods and suggested tips will serve as a great aid when our groups begin work on the final AR project. The bulleted list features one or two ideas that Costello also mentions in his chapter, including “breadcrumbs.” While Craig and Costello use the same term, the two authors’ use of it differs in context and medium. Costello addresses breadcrumbs as they relate to the web and page design, whereas Craig’s use is more traditional. Both, however, are relevant to the topic of navigation.

Sources:

Costello, V. (2012). Interface design and usability. Multimedia foundations: Core concepts for digital design (153-180). Boston: Elsevier.

Craig, A. B. (2013). Interaction in augmented reality. Understanding augmented reality: Concepts and applications (185-207). New York: Elsevier.