Google Glass: The role of augmented reality technology as a gatekeeper

Thesis version 27.06.2014

Annika Kuyper | 6034063

Google Glass: The role of augmented reality technology as a gatekeeper

Google GlassThe role of augmented reality technology as a gatekeeper

Master thesis

o Annika Kuyper | student number 6034063 | [email protected]

o Thesis supervisor | Dhr. dr. B.G.M. (Martijn) de Waal, Faculty of

Humanities at the University of Amsterdam (UvA)

o Second reader | Dhr. dr. J.A.A. (Jan) Simons, Faculty of

Humanities at University of Amsterdam

1




June 27, 2014

New Media & Digital Cultures

University of Amsterdam

2




ForewordUntil the “Mens voor de Lens” event1 February 20, 2014, organized by

the Hogeschool van Amsterdam, I never had any experience with Google

Glass. At this event I had the opportunity to try a Google Glass device

and was surprised to discover how many articles, parodies and other

media are already out there, particularly given the fact that, not many

people have yet been in touch with this product.

I tried Google Glass about 15-20 minutes; I walked at the venue place

‘Pakhuis the Zwijger’ and tried some features such as forecast

information, route planning programs and Google search functions.

During my attempts I made some photos in two different ways; using a

voice command by saying “take photo” and winking with my right eye. It

triggered my interest. Despite the Google Glass applications actually

doesn’t provide anything new (at the moment I tried), as there are

applications for smartphones and tablets that can do the same as

current Google Glass applications. However, it was still an amazing

experience to wear the device and talk, walk and do other daily things

while controlling Google Glass. If I have to believe the media, Google

Glass already seems a success.

An interesting fact is the complex way of ownership of Google

Glass and its applications, as the hardware platform and the concept of

Google Glass are created by one of world’s biggest companies, yet

developers (amateur as well as professional) are invited to develop

1 More information about the event can be found at: http://www.hva.nl/?post_type=agenda&p=32716

3




their own software applications and use API’s and open source to

explore new possibilities with the device.

Furthermore, also particularly interesting is the role this new

technology may fulfill in today’s already highly mediatized society.

4




Abstract

Nowadays, it is hard to imagine our life without new media

technologies. This mediatized life has impact on our interaction with

the physical environment around us. To investigate the role of those

technologies, as something that filters and controls the aforementioned

environment, a specific term “gatekeeper” has been used. The aim of

this thesis was to explore gatekeeper characteristics of Google Glass,

being augmented reality technology, in our interactions with the

physical (real) environment around us. With augmented reality the

spatial environment around humans become a sort of three-dimensional

touchscreen placed in front of the real world. With Google Glass, the

user becomes a computer input device, a first person point of view,

deciding what information they like to add to the physical environment

and importantly manipulating what they see and what they want to show

on the real layer. What it ultimately comes down to is that abstract

data suddenly is able to be shown in a more natural and realistic way,

making people better understand what the data means and how they fit

together. It shifts human surveillance into data surveillance.

Augmented reality software on Google Glass also has influence on human

agency.

Keywords

5




Human agency, Gatekeeper, Software-sorting, Code, Space, Augmented

reality, Google Glass, Code/space, transduction, Human-computer

interaction, Software, The internet of things.

6




Table of Content

Foreword..............................................................2

Abstract..............................................................3

Keywords..............................................................3

1. Introduction.......................................................8

1.1 Background......................................................8

1.2 Case study.....................................................13

1.3 Research questions.............................................14

1.4 thesis outline.................................................15

1.5 Chapter summary................................................16

2. Theoretical framework..................................172.1 What is Code...................................................17

2.2 Software.......................................................18

2.2.1 Free, Open, closed and commercial software............21

2.2.2 Application Programming Interface.....................22

2.2.3 The cultural role of software.........................23

2.3 Defining human agency..........................................25

2.3.1 Secondary agency......................................25

2.3.2 Power is everywhere...................................26

2.3.3 Illusion of agency....................................27

2.4 Software-sorting...............................................28

7




2.4.1 Automated management..................................30

2.5 Code/space.....................................................31

2.5.1 Physical- and augmented space.........................31

2.5.3 Code/space and Coded spaces...........................32

2.5.2 Transduction of space.................................33

2.5.4 The Internet of Things................................35

2.6 Chapter conclusion.............................................36

3. Case study: Google Glass................................393.1 Augmented reality..............................................39

3.2 Google Glass...................................................41

3.2.1 Google Glass as hardware..............................41

3.2.2 Google Glass software.................................44

3.3 Computer input device..........................................47

3.4 Intelligent augmented reality..................................48

3.5 Chapter conclusion.............................................49

4.Analysis: Five applications for Google Glass.................504.1 Word Lens......................................................50

4.1.1 Augmented reality Software............................52

4.1.2 Agency................................................52

4.1.3 Software-sorting......................................53

4.1.4 Code/space............................................53

4.2 Application ‘Watch your privacy’...............................53

4.2.1 Augmented reality Software............................55

8




4.2.2 Human Agency..........................................55


4.2.4 Code/space............................................56

4.3 Face recognition technology....................................57

4.3.1 Augmented reality software............................58

4.3.2 Human Agency..........................................59


4.3.4 Code/space............................................60

4.4 Interactive augmented reality..................................61


4.4.2 Human Agency..........................................62


4.4.4 Code/space............................................63

4.5 Google Project Glass augmented reality glasses.................63


4.5.2 Human Agency..........................................65


4.5.4 Code/space............................................66

4.6 Chapter Conclusion.............................................66

4.6.1 Human Agency..........................................66


4.6.3 Code/space............................................68

5. Conclusion...........................................695.1 Discussion.....................................................72

9




Acknowledgement..........................................73

Bibliography............................................74

Media list.............................................77

10




11




1. IntroductionIn this chapter I explain in more depth the general concept used

throughout this thesis. Also I explain the use of particular terms such

as ‘gatekeeper’, ‘human agency’, ‘augmented reality’ and ‘software-

sorting”.

1.1 Background

Our life is lived through, rather than with media, which is to say that

we are living a media life (Deuze 242). Smartphones and tablets have

become a mainstream phenomenon (Gartner, 2014), Google Glass and smart

watches have been introduced (Google, 2013), bodies are being scanned,

media technologies are integrated into daily life and society has

become an object for visible and invisible surveillance, tracking, and

sorting technologies (Graham, Welcome to 6). Ubiquitous surveillance and

control, to guide the population through the world of sophisticated

software that integrates our virtual and non-virtual lives, have become

an everyday practice. The fact that humans as consumers are being

monitored; for example by commercial and financial institutions to gain

knowledge regarding consumers’ shopping and other transfer patterns

which those institutions can use for future marketing campaigns.

Another example is, mobile phone providers tracking our movements,

locations and communications using GPS2 technology, to analyze habits

and patterns. Surveillance has its benefits, but when it falls in the

2 The term GPS is a shortcut for Global Positioning System (GPS) . It is a system thatprovides location and time information in all weather conditions.

12

http://www.schneier.com/essay-109.html




wrong hands it can be dangerous, oppressive and discriminatory.

Wherever there is surveillance, it tends to sort, manage and/or control

the population; it is integrated into our daily lives often without us

being aware of it. Nowadays, it is hard to imagine modern cities and

our mediatized life without new media systems and omnipresent

ubiquitous surveillance technologies. An mediatized life refers to the

definition of mediatization provided by Friedrich Krotz (2009):

“historical, ongoing, long-term process in which more and moremedia emerge and are institutionalized", [and mediatizationdescribes the] “process whereby communication refers to mediaand uses media so that media in the long run increasinglybecome relevant for the social construction of everyday life,society, and culture as a whole” (Krotz 24).

These mediatized virtual and non-virtual lives are all connected

through humans, technological devices and things (data, humans, objects

and processes). This concept is also called “The Internet of things”

(Ashton, 1999). It refers to our everyday mediatized life and our

ability to identify objects and to communicate with them and also the

ability of objects to communicate with each other. To let humans and

objects communicate with each other, software can be seen as the

‘fabric’ to connect; this fabric connects and allows the data processes

to work. As Manovich puts it: “Software has become our interface to the

world” (Software Takes 2).

In their influential work "code/space", Dodge and Kitchin (2011)

describe that software makes a difference in how social and economic

life is organized (3) and that the way we nowadays experience spaces is

13




determined by software. Importantly, individuals are not the only

players in social and economic developments, but also businesses and

institutions. The latter has become interesting as research subject in

order to understand the freedom of human agency, which will be further

explained in the theoretical framework. A good example is the OV-

Chipkaart3 (translated: Public transport card) for the Dutch public

transport system. On an individual level, people might be complaining

or welcoming the new proceedings of travelling. On a broader level,

life becomes more organized. Another example is cafes in cities

transformed into workspaces with electronic devices such as laptops and

wireless access. Therefore, the production of space, Dodge and Kitchin

argue, is “increasingly dependent on code, and code is written to

produce space”. The writers have conducted a new term to describe this

condition code/space. According to Dodge and Kitchin, code/space are

“physical spaces which are penetrated by information technologies and

the use of the space is contingent upon software”. In this sense, the

change and diffusion of information technologies into environments

around us have emerged as a new challenging area for reflection and

discussion. Environments around us, such as urban public spaces,

private and social spaces are changing because of the use of this

software.

This development may have consequences for human agency in this

environment. Who or what filters our environment for us? Do we have our

own control, or does agency become an illusion of freedom of choice; do3 The OV-chipkaart is the payment method for public transport in the Netherlands (OV-chipkaart). More information can be found at: https://www.ov-chipkaart.nl/

14




we lose our agency to software? To what extent does human agency have

control when it comes to software and new technologies such as Google

Glass? The debate about the relation between human agency and

technology is very interesting, but not new. Not only in the mediatized

digital age we currently live in, but also in the early days have human

agency and technology been integrated in daily life. Ideas of rights,

power and human agency have existed in some form for much of human

history. Every period has its own characteristics of power and control.

In the nowadays digital- and information age, the question is who or

what has power and control; the creator of technology, the user or the

technology itself?

There should be something that filters and controls the physical

environment. Some views assume that technology is not neutral because

those views assume that technology tends to control. A significant part

of technology is the software it runs on. It is feasible to assume that

software might have a major role in the technological progress4 of new

media technologies. Therefore, I find it interesting to investigate the

role of software as the part that filters and controls the

aforementioned environment. I will introduce a specific term

“gatekeeper”, because in essential the academic definition of this term

encompasses a filtering and control function. Below, I will explain the

concept gatekeeper in further detail, in order to fully understand the

usage of this term in my thesis.

4 With technical progress is meant the improvement of new technologies and thetechnological changes embodied in the machines, equipment, devices, processes etc.

15




A gatekeeper is traditionally a person who controls a port, somebody

who decides who shall pass through a gate section and who assesses

possible dangers to a city. The gatekeeper, here operates within a

system of admission and exclusion. Since the beginning of the fifties

the term gatekeeper has been used in new ways. Kurt Lewin was the first

to use the term gatekeeping in literature, he argued that women were

‘gatekeepers’ in their role in the family, as they decided what food

was served on the family's dinner table (Lewin, 1947). It was David

Manning White who turned Lewin’s words into a journalism idea in the

beginning of the fifties. A gatekeeper can also be interpreted as “a

person that facilitates information transfer by informal communication”

(Allen 13). This definition is particularly relevant to journalism and

communication studies, which use the concept of the gatekeeper theory

as surveillance function to filter information for distribution,

publication (off- en online, broadcasting etc. Gatekeeping is hence

used to manage social control and as a tool to set an agenda. According

to the Online Oxford Dictionary a gatekeeper is formulated as “a person

or thing that controls access to something”. Recently gatekeeping

theories are being used in the debate on media and Internet

technologies and their influence on daily life. For example Livingston

and Bennett (2003) used the gatekeeping theory to argue that

information and communication technologies are defining the limits of

time and space in, for example, news gathering (367-371).

I will combine the classical definition of “a thing that controls

access to something” with the modern approximation of Livingstone &

16




Bennett which includes information and communication technologies. In

this thesis the term ‘gatekeeper’ will be used in relation to a

technical device that controls access to something - a new media

technology running on software which controls and gives access to two

different layers which are interlaced in contemporary societies.

Firstly, a space layer (environment) and secondly a social layer. Those

two layers determine the level of human agency. Nowadays technologies

are the key gatekeepers in our daily life. With the immense

possibilities that technology provides, the gatekeeper’s role of

software seems to become more important than ever. The aim of this

thesis is to identify in nowadays technologies specific gatekeeper

characteristics in relation to our interaction with the mediatized

world in an augmented world. More specifically, I am aiming to

investigate in which way software is performing as a gatekeeper and

what or who is keeping or controlling the gate to our physical surroundings

using new media technologies.

In order to academically analyze the term ‘gatekeeper’, according

to my adaptation of the term, there are some aspects that need to be

taken into account. Firstly, the selection of a new media technology, in

this case I choose “augmented reality” technology – a choice which will

be further explained in the next paragraph. Secondly, one has to

consider the regional aspects; software may play a very different role

in different societies. Thirdly, the level of user activity and the

availability of technology. In some geographical places and spaced or

situations there will be more access to technology than in others. In a

mediatized life, technologies are providing these spaces through

17




material devices and other tools, such as machines, keyboards and mobile

phones. It would be interesting to find out where we can find the “gate”

in augmented technologies. Technology, which consists of hardware and

software, can influence our social and physical daily lives in many

different ways and on different levels. It can create opportunities in

schooling, the way we manage our households, the advancements around us

in medical care, the options offered in public spaces, the way we

understand and receive information from the world around us, including

the media and much more. The influence of software in on our lives

brings both opportunities and consequences. One of these consequences is

the possible demise of human agency and increase of software sorting.

According to Stephen Graham5, software sorting takes place in a critical

landscape of power in which individual and collective life’s chances are

shaped increasingly by their treatment within computer controlled and

customized service domains (Graham 2). I will elaborate more on software

sorting in chapter 2 of this thesis. The crucial question here is to

whom, where and how technology as gatekeeper is giving its power? How

does software try to influence the thoughts and actions of the user? Do

humans or software control access to information? This issue is

important because, as I stated earlier, according to certain views

software is not just a neutral tool, but mediates and changes our world;

thus software seems to function as a gatekeeper and also performs

sorting. To fully understand the modern gatekeeper, I investigate the

effect of a new media technology “augmented reality”, which became the

5 Stephen Graham is a academically author researches cities and urban life. Moreinformation about Graham can be find at the New Castel University:www.ncl.ac.uk/apl/staff/profile/steve.graham

18




inspiration to the case study “Google glass”.

1.2 Case study

In this thesis I will explore the (new) technology called augmented

reality (AR). With this I mean immersive technology and it refers to software

that blurs the barrier between the physical and digital world, thereby

creating an “immersive” experience. While immersed, the user of AR

experiences both worlds at the same time, the physical and digital, and

cannot switch between these two worlds. Typical characteristics of

augmented systems are images added to the existing environment to

enhance the real world. Augmented reality takes real-world, real-time

environments and adds digital enhancements to enable interaction and

convey extra information. AR produces a new kind of “blended reality”.

It allows the user to see the real world, with virtual objects

composited within that real world.

A new media object based on immersive technology is Google Glass.

Google Glass is a wearable mini-computer built into spectacle frames

which has a constant display in the user’s field of vision with which

the user can view film, take pictures, search and translate on the go

as well as run specially-designed software and apps. Google Glass can

easily be personalized with additional software. I will study this

device as a system, because it is one of the latest new technologies

providing augmented reality options. Through a case study, I will apply

the theories, as described in chapter 2, on Google Glass. Besides

19




Google Glass as hardware, I will describe five Google Glass software

applications.

I will focus my research on a possible gatekeeper’s role of

Google Glass as being augmented reality technology and what impact has

Google Glass as a gatekeeper on human agency.

Because I don't have a Google Glass (yet), I can't experiment on myself

and thus have to make use of existing case studies.

1.3 Research questions

This thesis will look at the issues surrounding the role of software

and specifically, the influence that Google Glass, as being an

augmented reality device, may have in terms of gatekeeping. The above

leads to the following research questions:

How might augmented reality technology, such as Google Glass, perform as a gatekeeper in our

interaction with physical surroundings and what does it mean for human agency?

In order to be able to answer this research question, I will discuss a

theoretical framework and perform a case study. Following I will set

the theory in two analyses: firstly I will apply theory on the case

study, and secondly I will look at five augmented reality software

application. Finally I present the conclusions and discussion.

1.4 thesis outline and methods

20




The theoretical framework will foremost reflect on the issues mentioned

above by looking at the theory of code/space and the history of

software as a broad theory. This will be presented in the second

chapter. After the theoretical framework I will describe in the third

chapter a case study on augmented reality and I will also describe

Google Glass, being an augmented reality device, from a technical point

of view. I will consider the relationship between the gatekeeper

(augmented reality devices, such as Google Glass) and the role of human

agency (power and control) as interaction situated within a broader

environment in the urban public sphere through the theory of software-

sorting (Graham and Wood, 2003). I will take Foucault’s theory into

account to compare human agency and social structure in different

layers, such as the physical surroundings and the augmented virtual

surroundings.

To research the relationship between software and humans, I will

use Manovich’s theory about software culture and how it relates to

Dodge and Kitchin’s theory of code/space as an introduction to the way

human agency and technology interrelate. This will be completed by

theory about technological or media determinism and the

relationship/exchange between human agency and technology. Manovich

says “Software is the glue that ties it all together” (Manovich 1). To

research the interaction between users and technological devices, I

will also look how software is operating, and learning, as a social

system itself, called by Dodge and Kitchin “relational producer”.

Since Google Glass is part of a larger development of augmented

reality and ubiquitous computing, the theoretical framework, mainly

21




stemming from software studies and ubiquitous computing, is

appropriate. Therefore, A case study approach has been chosen as it

focuses on a specific case (Google Glass) which is bounded by Google’s

boundaries. The methodology is based on sources related to the research

question and included five applications for Google Glass and the

theoretical framework from chapter two is applied on the case studies.

Finally, the conclusion and discussion is given in the final

fifth chapter.

1.5 Chapter summary

This chapter introduced the background and aim of this thesis. The

substantive main theme of this thesis is the role of augmented reality

technology as gatekeeper in our interaction with physical surroundings

and also the impact of augmented reality on human agency. It outlines

the research methods as well as the research question, aim of this

study and the use of several case studies.

22




2. Theoretical frameworkIn this chapter, my aim is to outline literature and media theories

relevant to the research question. However, before I start exploring

these theories, it is important to understand the way modern software

operates. I will introduce the individual concepts of code, space, software

and human agency separately. After this I will merge the concepts of

code and space together in order to identify characteristics of a

gatekeeper in software in relation to our interaction with the physical

world and what it means for human agency.

2.1 What is Code

We live in an era of increased software presence. Software consists of

code. Code is a broad term. Often the word is used to get somewhere

that is locked, for example a password or opening a lock with a serial

number. Secret messages or alarm signs such as the Morse code6 are also

defined as code. In this thesis I will use another definition of code

which is the code of computer language. The origin of a computer

language is a ‘binary’, which basically consists of a combination of

zeroes and ones (machine code). Same as Morse code is a form of binary

code; all computers are based on a binary system. Today’s computers,

smartphones and technologies contain millions or even billions of

combinations, which means an unimaginably large number of binaries.

6 Morse code is a method of transmitting text information as a series of on-off tones, lights, or clicks that can be directly understood by a skilled listener or observer without special equipment. More information see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code

23




These combinations are translated and represented into more readable

code for humans called ASCII numbers and letters. To make a computer do

what we want, we need software programs based on code created by a

programmer. This code is also referred to as source code. Computer

programs are programmed using certain programming languages, and

interpreted by a computer in machine code. Every software program

consists of source code with instructions. According to Kevlin Henney

(2004) “code is the definition of software”, but he also recognizes a

subtle distinction between code and software. The difference being that

programmers are writing the code and software is the final product.

Just as there is a difference between code and software, there is a

distinct difference between computer languages such as Java, C+++ and

Python.

Code is generally hidden; invisible inside the machine (Dodge &

Kitchin 4). Exceptions sometimes occur when code become more visible,

for instance in case of system failure. For example, web pages generate

script errors in the browser, or assertion messages and stack traces

that appear in message boxes or on the console as a program aborts

(Henney, 2004). Code performing as software has a powerful effect on

our lives. Dodge and Kitchin (2011) dedicate a chapter to “the power of

code” (9) in their book “Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life”, where

they explain how code and software actively have the power to shape

people’s daily life (10). Dodge and Kitchin are not the only ones

writing about the power of code and software. Software studies describe

theories about society and power relations. Tools, such as Microsoft

Word (Fuller), or the Perl computer language (Mackenzie), a virus

24




(Parikka) or an interface (Galloway) are analyzed in software studies,

which make it possible to unravel the power of code. In the next

paragraph, I describe how software shapes our life and which different

software can be categorized.

2.2 Software

Shaping life with new ICT (Information and Communication Technology)

and new products and services have become part of our life. Software is

the core of this ICT revolution. It is software that provides

intelligence and features to any “hard” device such as mobile phones,

music players, transportation vehicles, home appliances (Fugetta,

2008). When using Facebook on your phone, you are using software. When

you write in a Word document, you are using software. When you search

on Google, you are using software. While playing games you engage with

the software, but also using public transport, withdraw money at an ATM

machine or checking in at an airport is all based on software. Software

structures our modern world. It is not only interactions in our daily

life with software on computer based seeable products and devices, but

also invisible software; for example the technological processes behind

the ATM machine, the software that makes doors automatically open, the

automatically light time switch, the MRI scan in hospitals etc. This

hidden and unhidden software is precisely the powerful level at which

code infiltrate our lives. It is therefore essential to understand the

characteristics of software and its gatekeeper role for the

interactions with the physical space. I will come back to this in next

paragraphs about code/space, a concept of Dodge and Kitchin.

25




Nowadays software is defining our lives and shaping our world (Dodge

and Kitchin (10). We are living in a “software culture” (Manovich,

Software Takes 13). Also according to Dodge and Kitchin (2011) software

makes a difference in how social and economic life is organized (3). It

is important to understand what software is and what kind of different

software there is. What exactly is software? Software is a program or a

set of programs, running on hardware7 and is defined by the Oxford

Dictionary as “programs and other operating information used by a

computer”. The basis of these programs consists of an accumulation of

instructions. According to Dodge & Kitchin software is defined as code

which consists of algorithms and instructions which generate complex

routines and programs that produce visible effects in the environment

or spatial space around us (3). For example when writing a text in a

word document, the data is constructed by software in real time.

Software needs hardware to have his function, which is to say that

hardware and software require each other. Software also needs human;

software is a product existing out of code and is written by human.

Software alone also became an object of study. According to

Matthew Fuller “all intellectual work now is software study” (qtd. in

Manovich, Software Takes 11). By highlighting this fact, Manovich wants to

demonstrate that although often overlooked in the theorization of

digital media and other computer based studies, software provides the

base on which everything else is built. So far, the main focus of

7 Hardware is defined by Dodge and Kitchin as “the physical components of a computer including digital circuitry within and across which software is executed” (262).

26




computational and media studies have focused on the technical matters

of engineering. But software should be integrated in many disciplines

such as cultural analysis, sociological, and psychological fields.

Software studies as a research field do not belong to computer

science or software engineering, which deal with information theory and

the practical approach towards software. Software studies deal with the

importance of software “as a layer that is interlaced in contemporary

societies” (Kerssens & Kuyper, 2013). Software should be investigated

as a layer to understand interactions, communications, structures and

contemporary techniques of control. This layer is variable and

changeable. According to Manovich the focus of software studies is to

“[investigate] the role of software in contemporary culture, and the

cultural and social forces that are shaping the development of software

itself” (Software Takes 10). It is the influence of the individual to the

collective use of software. “it is directly used by hundreds of

millions of people and that it carries “atoms” of culture”, also called

“software culture” by Manovich, where “media and information, as well

as human interactions around these media and information, is only the

visible part of a much larger software universe” (Cultural Software 3).

It is good to take into account that there are different kinds of

developed software. There is commercial software which is closed and

there is open software which can be free to use but can also be paid

for (Kerssens & Kuyper, 2013). It is however also possible to combine

the use of commercial and open or free software. It is important to see

the difference, because it also changes the debate about the relation

27




between human agency and technology. Commercial software precludes the

participation of ordinary citizens in the process of defining rules and

instructions. Open source is computer software that gives free access

to the source code (the source). Linux is one of the most well-known

open source-software programs. Most code or software is closed-source

and is commercial software though, and it is produced for sale or the

software serves commercial purposes. Human agency for the user to

develop is excluded. It is the programmer working at the commercial

company who ultimately determines what the software does and how it

does it.

2.2.1 Free, Open, closed and commercial software

As above described there are different types of software. Commercial

software excludes ordinary citizens to participate in the process of

defining rules and instructions. But the most code or software is

closed-source and commercial software. This is produced for sale or for

software serves commercial purposes. The commercial software has their

own ‘recipe’ of a combination of source code. The users can use this

secret recipe, but have to buy or rent the program (Kerssens and

Kuyper, 2012).

Most of the leading commercial companies, such as Apple Inc.,

Google, Facebook, Cisco Systems are based in Silicon Valley8, which is

known for its tech savvy work force and its innovative character when8 Silicon Valley is at the west coast of the USA in the southern region in California. It is home to many of the world's largest technology corporations,software companies, and thousands of small startups. See for more information at www.digitalmethods.net/MoM/SoftwareAnalysis

28




it comes to software and Internet services. Those commercial companies

have significant influence on technological systems, software decisions

and user interfaces. By using commercial software human agency is

partly excluded. On the one hand it is the programmer working at the

commercial company which ultimately determines what the software does

and how it does its job. On the other hand the user still has the

agency to choose what to buy and how to use the software. The in- and

exclusion of human agency will be further explained in next paragraphs.

The main characteristic of free software is freedom to share the source

code with others after paying for it. In the 1980s the term free

software was introduced by the movement we now know as the Free

Software Foundation (Kerssens and Kuyper, 2012).

Characteristics of open source software (OSS) or Free/Libre/Open

Source Software (FLOSS) is software that gives free access to the

source code (the source) and is mostly developed in a public and

collaborative manner (Kerssens and Kuyper, 2012). FLOSS programs can be

used for free, for any purpose and without paying a fee to previous

programmers. Examples are modifying and redistributing copies or

original programs, which equates to gaining information for free

(Wheeler 514). The name “open source” was adopted in 1998 by the same

people from the free software movement as mentioned above.

Sometimes, free and open software are confusing concepts. They

have overlapping characteristics, such as certain freedom with respect

to the code. But there is an ideological difference between "Free

Software" and “Open Source” (Kerssens and Kuyper, 2012). The main

29




difference that I wish to highlight is that “the open source tends to

focus on providing an (economic) business for free software” (Kerssens

and Kuyper, 2012).

2.2.2 Application Programming Interface

Another open form of software is: application programming interface

(Called: API), which is free to share and can interact with data and

other software. The API is important for free and open communication

between software. It is made out of code created by programmers for

their software and applications, and is generally invisible for the

user. An API is a software application which can interact and share

data with other software. It is not a user interface; it contains just

code which can communicate with other code. Software creators

(companies and developers) are building good API’s in their software

because the more applications that interact with software the better.

The API fulfills a gatekeeper function; what to share and what to hold

close to other companies and software. The difference with open, free

or commercial software is that API’s have a consuming function; all

rights are still with the creator of the software itself.

An example is the copy-past function. When the user copies text

from Microsoft Word, he or she has to be able to paste this exact same

text in Google Search as well. These two applications communicate

through API. Also, databases work with API’s. If the database of a

museum for example, can be shared with an open API, other applications,

such as a mobile phone application can use this data. The owner of the

data is still the museum, but others can communicate through the API to

30




use or show the data for free. Look at Google Maps; they provide a wide

range of API’s to embed a Google Map image or Street View panorama in

an application or just at your personal website. However, Google stays

the owner of all the data. In short, API matters because there is a

need for communication between different software.

2.2.3 The cultural role of software

The introduction above has set the context of software and explained

how code is built and written by programmers. For the purpose of this

thesis I will not go into further detail on the technical aspects. I

will instead, concentrate on the cultural discourse behind the written

software. As we have seen in the paragraph before, software is divided

into platform specific roles such as different languages or API’s,

open- and closed software and disciplines. In this respect I see

software as the gatekeeper with the specific role to explore this

cultural performative side behind the code. To explore this role I will

explain the discourse of cultural software.

In his essay “The Performativity of Code: Software and Cultures

of “Circulation' Mackenzie started out from the question of how

computer code could be a cultural object. “Any sense of agency assigned

to code relies on the relation of 'code's existence as both expression

and process” (Mackenzie, Cutting Code 141):

“Making code and coding into a prototype for software production seems veryrecursive, but in terms of the contestations of agency associated with software, theprimacy of coding can be seen as asserting the identity of programmers as theoriginators of software.” (Mackenzie, Cutting Code 141)

31




According to Mackenzie it depends on the cultural discourse of how

programmers (working and instructing by a software company) create and

program the product. Instead Manovich explains “Cultural Software” as

cultural evolution of software what is shaped by many users,

developers, movements, groups etc. He doesn’t mention just the

developers, also the creators and users are having a role to make

software culturally. Think about API, open and free software, also

amateurs can use and create software. Similar to the paradigm shift

(Ritzer 381) of professional journalism from offline to online. Before,

journalism could only be done by a professional journalist. When

Internet started to become booming, regular consumers also started to

write journalistic articles, such as blog posts. They became prosumers9,

which means consumers who produce journalism. It has become easier for

software users to produce software, such as API or open source.

According to Manovich (2011) it is “now the time to start thinking

theoretically about how software is shaping our culture and how it in

return is shaped by culture. More people are studying in the field of

IT and the software development is “getting more democratised”

(Manovich, Cultural software 2011).

2.3 Defining human agency

Agency is a term used in many variated ways. It is addressed in many

studyfields and researches, with each of them using a different9 More background information and academic articles about the paradigm shift betweenproducers and consumers of professional journalism can be find in articles such as:Ritzer George, Paul Dean, and Nathan Jurgenson. "The coming of age of theprosumer." American Behavioral Scientist 56.4 (2012): 379-398 or Bruns, Axel. "From prosumerto produser: Understanding user-led content creation." (2009).

32




particular definition. The concept of human agency has already had a

central position in the history of political and social thoughts

(Foucault, 1991). Agency is the possibility of individuals to act

independently and make their own free choices. Human agency is about

controlling conscious own choices and suggests physical actions (such

as interactions with technologies). Technology and thus software can

include and exclude human agency easier, but can also make human agency

more complex and complicated. We live in an increasingly mediatized

world, and technology is always raising the question: “who [or what] is

in control now?” (Baron 347).

2.3.1 Secondary agency

Not only humans have human agency. Humans are also using software to

express their agency or humans even might provide empowerment to

technology. Sometimes software is having its own kind of agency; a

system working autonomously. Mackenzie calls this “secondary agency”.

Technology here has the power to interact without human activity. The

user isn’t aware of this whole process, as this process is not visible

to the user.

Also Dodge and Kitchin mention that “objects are remade and

recast through interconnecting circuits of software” (47) and the

software is operating, and learning, as a social system itself:

“relational producer” (43). The relational producer (codes, hardware and

infrastructures) operate and communicate across. Take for example, a

heater system. It can be programmed, so that the heater system will

detect when the temperature of the physical environment is below a

33




certain value, set by a user. The heater system will then start

increasing the temperature of this physical environment according to

another value set by this same user. Hence, we can see that code

enables technology to make something work; “it can process data,

evaluate situations, and make decisions without human [or institutions

and companies] oversight or authorization” (Mackenzie 8).

2.3.2 Power is everywhere

As already mentioned in the introduction, the debate about the relation

between human agency and technology is not new. Also in early days,

discussions about power and control are at stake. For example, Michel

Foucault’s idea about power: “Power is everywhere” and “comes from everywhere”

(1977). A very strong statement, where the French historian and social

theorist states that power is always present; between humans, things

and knowledge. Foucault sees it as something natural and as something

positive. According to him, knowledge is power.

Knowledge, once used to regulate the conduct of others, entails constraint,regulation and the disciplining of practice. Thus, 'there is no power relation withoutthe correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does notpresuppose and constitute at the same time, power relations (Foucault 27).

It is a power regulated by the system itself. In his example of the

metaphor of Bentham's prison “the Panopticon”, he describes that power

is regulating itself naturally by a system. The Panopticon as Foucault

describes, is the concept of a circular building containing prison

cells. In the center of this circle is a tower in which the security

guards reside. From this tower, the guards keep an eye on all

34




prisoners. The prisoners cannot see the guards, because there is a

bright light coming from the tower which blinds the prisoners’ view

when they try to look at the tower. The purpose of this system is to

make them not able to know when they are being watched and when not,

resulting in constant good behavior. The prisoners here don’t have

knowledge, thus no power. In conclusion, in this system power and

control functions automatically.

I compare the above to software; a system of codes made by a

company’s discourse and which regulates power itself. In both the

concept of the Panopticon as well as in the concept of software as a

system, there is agency. When a system is running, the agency is not

noticeable anymore; it is already weaved into the whole system. It is

important to take into account Foucault’s view on agency in systems,

because it changes the way we see the gatekeeper’s role of software. It

strengthens the view that software is not neutral.

2.3.3 Illusion of agency

In above paragraphs human agency is explained, as well as secondary

agency and how software can communicate. Agency is about controlling or

being controlled; do we have our own control, do we have freedom of

choice?

Different types of software applications have different types of

agency. In games, human agency is imbedded in the game- and player

control. A game is free to use within the software boundaries it is

developed. For example, FIFA 2014 by Electronic Arts, it is not

possible to step into a car with a player. Microsoft Word, is also

35




software with usage boundaries, but the user can’t have more options

than the Microsoft is providing in the software package. However we

still can take human agency to write about everything we like. When the

user writes information about porn in MS Word, nobody will ever check

and stop the user to write about sex. When a person writes a message

with sexual content on specific social media platforms, such as

Facebook, the software company will delete it as soon as they notice

the sexual message or when somebody else reports it. This lack of

freedom of publicity is a limitation of human agency.

Taking the above into consideration, one can say that the gatekeeper’s

role of software is different and variable in every software product,

application or even setting and surrounding. All of these examples are

therefore to some extent 'enabling' and 'constraining' in different

gradations the human agency. In this sense, software creates an

illusion or manipulation of human agency. The limits of choices are

given by the software company. On the one hand the user feels that

everything is under his or her control, but on the other hand, the user

can only do what is within the script of the software. Norman Klein is

calling this “illusion of agency”. Software creates the illusion that

the user is an inside player: “It gives the impression that humans are

the central character in the process” (Klein, 2011).

2.4 Software-sorting

Software is not just a neutral tool, but mediates the world: software

functions as a gatekeeper in the sense of empowering humans and objects

to shape and understand the world. Software is not neutral because

36




there are always underlying scripts or intentions. Most software look

out for commercial purposes. Their closed hard- and software systems

exclude users to have own agency to (co-)develop or program the

product. In nearly every software product there is a take- and give

function. For example, Facebook is built on software that enables

people through their profiles and so called walls to tell about

themselves, to have an online gathering space for friends,

acquaintances, family and colleagues, to meet new people, to share

about future and past events. In turn, Facebook acquires important data

from those people. Google Search gives the user partly freedom to

search, share and add online content. It is a free service to search

within the Google database. Google collects information and data from

the user to sell or re-use again. They use the huge amount of data for

digital advertisement purposes.

The power of code is not just in its technical instructions but also in

the “collective discourse, thought, action and identity formation” that

it can provide (Mackenzie 2006). The power to shape people's daily life

is relational and rises out of consensus and interactions between code

and the world (Dodge and Kitchin 40).

Thus, on the one hand software increases agency and makes life

easier. On the other hand software forces humans to make certain

choices. Dodge and Kitchin argue that even though software explicitly

shapes how people live their lives to varying degrees, it is still not

a deterministic relationship (Dodge & Kitchin 44). Ascribing power to

software is not necessarily a deterministic view, but a way to sort

daily lives in software, a filtering process which Graham and

37




Wood(2003) refer to as software-sorting: “the means through which such

selective access is organized” (Graham and Wood 562). Software-sorting

is more a technique or concept to categorize and control humans through

software.

Dodge & Kitchin argue that software does generate and provide

agency, but opens up domains to new possibilities and determinations

(39). However, coded domains such as technologized environments

continuously and invisibly classify and standardize (Graham and Wood

228-233). For example the construction of environments and

infrastructures of cities are being produced and managed “through

millions of electronic tags, cards, transponders, mobile phones,

computers and cameras” (Graham, Welcome to 6). This software in the

environment around us needs an inputting code, for example scanning of

a public transport card, a tag or password. After the input, the

software sorts, analyses and separates people based on pre-programmed

instructions. For example, if you don't have access to a building by

scanning a card, the door will stay closed. The system will open the

door when you scan your card with access to the building. Jeremy Rifkin

calls this the “age of access”, where systems automatically mediate

access to spaces through surveillance technology. Rifkin uses the term

age of access to describe “the way in which individual and collective life

chances are shaped increasingly by their treatment within computer

controlled, customized, service domains” (qtd. in Graham, geographies

564). Based on the age of access, Graham and Wood introduced the term

software-sorting, by which they mean the organization such software and

the selective access it provides (Graham and Wood 227-229).

38




2.4.1 Automated management

Dodge and Kitchin also describe organization through software, which

they call “automated management”.

“The regulation of people and objects through processes that are automated

(technologically enacted), automatic (the technology performs the regulation

without prompting or direction), and autonomous (regulation, discipline, and

outcomes are enacted without human oversight) in nature” (Dodge & Kitchin 85).

Automated management is the primary effect of software-sorting. The

code automatically manages data (collection, calculations, processes,

interactions) without the intervention of government, corporations,

global marketplace, or schools (Chun 7). The software operates, and

learns, as a social system itself, called by Dodge and Kitchin

“relational producer”. The relational producer (codes, hardware and

infrastructures) operate and communicate across. The automated

management is a primary key to manage and control a society; it works

to “actively discipline citizens” (Dodge and Kitchin 86). Also Galloway

agrees here that software lead to a control society where protocols

govern the set of behavior, within a contingent system (87). They give

an example of retail shops; the products are with barcode, the sellers

having employers ID’s and the worked hours are paid by a preset of

honor and time for particular employer ID’s. The automated management

is a system with disciplinary benefits for capitalism and the

govermentality; it will regulate people for safety; it will make

society and travel more secure; it will make business more efficient

39




and crime will be effectively decreasing through surveillance

technologies. These examples explain how software is reshaping and

reorder the technologies, ideologies, systems and govermentality in

daily life (109).

2.5 Code/space

Since I already introduced software in paragraph 2.2, I will now

introduce space as a concept. Followed by the concept of code/space and

coded spaces of Dodge and Kitchin.

2.5.1 Physical- and augmented space

What is the definition of space in the context of this thesis? Much

like the term code, space is a broad and complex term. The complexity

of space lies in our knowledge that we can never know space as it

really is; we can only perceive it as our interpretation. Space is

described as logical and abstract, as well as representatives of

sensorial inputs. “It is quite possible that this decade of the 2000s

will turn out to be about the physical– that is, physical space filled

with electronic and visual information” (Manovich, 2006).

I choose to use both conceptual and geographical understandings

of space to explain the relevance of space in a discussion of the

gatekeeping role played by software. My aim is to explore how human

beings perceive both spaces. The geographical concept of space is the

most tangible; it is the physical space that surrounds us. It can be

represented by geographical maps, such as roadmaps, Google Earth, GPS

functions in devices and web 2.0 architecture mapping. Digital maps of

40




networks and architecture are related. The conceptual definition of

space is less tangible. It is a metaphor for an empty or available area

somewhere or in something. Even in the Macmillan dictionary there are

many definitions, such as “the area that is available on a computer for

storing information”, “an area used for a particular purpose”, “an

empty area between things”, “the area in which everything exists”

(Macmillan Publishers Limited 2009–2014). All of the definitions are

related to the environment around us or in technology.

To define the concept of space related to the gatekeeper’s role

of software and our interactions with physical environment, Dodge and

Kitchin’s concept of code/space is the most useful. According to Dodge

and Kitchin code/spaces are “physical spaces which are penetrated by

information technologies and the use of the space is contingent upon

software”. Space and code [read: software] are depend and influence

each other.

2.5.3 Code/space and Coded spaces

Within the first concept “Code/space”, the code and the space are

mutually dependent on one another. They can't exist without each other.

In this thesis I assume that code allows certain forms of power through

structures, network and societies, but such power and human agency

always “distributes itself” (Mackenzie 10), which is to say that it is

always based on the relational structure. To further explain this I

will give an example. I will use the example from Dodge and Kitchin

themselves. They mention a check-in area at airports as the perfect

situation to explain how codes are depending on space and the other way

41

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=purpose

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=particular

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=a

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=for

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=used

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=area

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=an

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=information

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=for

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=computer

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=a

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=on

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=available

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=is

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=that


http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=the


http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=available

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/search/british/direct/?q=or




around. At a check-in area is no other way to check people in, analogue

check-ins will not be accepted (anymore) because of security reasons

(17). If the code embedded in the software or systems fails, people are

stuck at the airport and have to wait till programmers fix the problem.

The effect of the digital system failure is then visible in the

physical space around. People are waiting, informing, directing and

searching for a solution. Thus, the check-in area basically is nothing

more than just a waiting room at this point. Furthermore, the physical

area is a check-in area because of the software. Thus, the code depends

on space but also the other way around.

The second concept, which is slightly different from code/space

are “coded spaces”. These are not entirely dependent on code to

function. For example, a presentation to a group of people may use

PowerPoint slides. When the digital system fails and the PowerPoint

cannot be presented, it will have an impact on the presentation. The

consequences are that the public may not understand the speaker as

clearly, but the speaker can still speak and explain his presentation,

perhaps less efficiently and effectively as the contribution of the

PowerPoint slides” (Dodge and Kitchin 17). “Here, the role of code is

often of augmentation, facilitation, monitoring, and so on rather

control and regulation” (Dodge and Kitchin 17).

The concepts “code/space” and “coded spaces” of Dodge and Kitchin

are interesting because they will say something about the gatekeepers

role of software and the fact how humans become familiar and changing

behavior and thoughts. To analyze this gatekeeper’s role and process of

the change of perception of code/space, I go through some other

42




theoretical concepts, such as Transduction of Space and the

Internet of Things (IoT).

2.5.2 Transduction of space

The process of transduction is explained by Dodge and Kitchin as

continually making a new domain in transformative practices, “as an

incomplete solution to a relational problem” (1). The term transduction

was first used by the philosophy of Gilbert Simondon (1964) to name a

process where any stability appears. Inspired by Simondon it is

Mackenzie (2003) who introduced the concept of “transduction” to

explain the connection between technologies and humans. According to

Mackenzie, technology is not the same to everyone; it is depending on a

series of variables, such as personal histories, intentions, desires,

competencies and transduction. The transduction processes are popping

up, according to Mackenzie, “at the interface between technical and

non-technical, human and non-human, living and non-living” (Mackenzie,

Transductions 52). It is a process by which things transfer from one state

to another (Dodge and Kitchin 72). Transduction of space is the process

in which space develops from one state into another state.

Dodge and Kitchin explain transduction through several examples.

Firstly, in life we deal with never ending relational problems. Life is

a loop of problems, with different problems always arising. They give

another example to describe it more at a micro level. Take for

instance, the writing of this thesis. The process of writing it,

consists of relation problems; thoughts about what to write, how to

spell the next word, how to finish the sentence, how to structure the

43




paragraph and how to make a convincing argument (72). Looking up words

on the Internet, typing, copy and pasting, discussions with my thesis

coordinator, reading literature, etcetera, transformed my thesis from

one state to the next, with each state having its own problems. All

those previously mentioned actions constitute a transduction (72).

Dodge and Kitchin are explaining the transduction process in a

broader sense: transduction of space. Code is part of a solution- same

as the human action of the problems of writings- to a running set of

relational problems. Dodge and Kitchin illustrate this with an example

of the checking in for a flight and the relation between space and

code. The human in the process of transduction is in the middle of the

moment of space, coded objects (for example detecting technology or

bank cards), infrastructures (for example cell phone networks),

processes (for example ATM machines to pay) and assemblages (for

example, the airport) (73). Software is making the space transduced

automatically; space is transduced and always reacts continually. For

example, traffic lights in the public space. The situation will always

change, such as the amount of cars and bikes, the weather etc. But the

software automatically keeps going on.

Also code/space is transduced, according Dodge and Kitchin “when

software [read: code] and the spatiality of everyday life become

mutually constituted, that is, produced through one another” (73).

“Through transduction a domain structures itself as a partial, always

incomplete solution to a relational problem” (Mackenzie 10).

Summarized are Dodge and Kitchin arguing that “coded space and

code/space occurs where the transduction of space mediated by or is

44




dependent on software” (73). The concept of software as space-producing

is also not deterministic but is instead fluid and changeable. It’s a

continuously process of interactions between human, objects, code and

processes.

2.5.4 The Internet of Things

To explain interconnection between code and space more I look into the

interaction of code and the concept of the Internet of Things (Ashton, 1999)

where devices and things (data, people, objects and process) are

connected through internet technology:

“A universal indexing mechanism for anything that matters and mechanism bywhich objects can connect to, transfer, and process information with each other andwith people” (Dodge and Kitchin 47)

The concept “Internet of Things” was first mentioned by Kevin Ashton in

1999. The Oxford Online Dictionary defines it as “a proposed

development of the Internet, in which everyday objects have network

connectivity, allowing them to send and receive data.” According to

Ashton and many others the Internet of Things has the potential to

change the world. The Internet of Things is changing daily life.

Objects that depend upon their coded constitutions are called by Dodge

and Kitchin “Codejects” (54). Dodge and Kitchin mention three sort of

Codejects. Firstly “hard codejects”; the software is embedded in the

object and is essential for their function (56). “Unitary Codejects”

are objects which are programmable and changeable. “Users are able to

control some aspects of the object’s functionality” (56). The third

45




kind of Codeject is “Logjects”, as the name already suggests they

retain logs. The material object “has a useful degree of awareness of

itself and its relations with the world” (262). The data about the

relations can be collected and stored and used again in the future

(56). Codejects are important because they facilitate humans with their

function in daily life (61).

Cisco is going a step further and describes the “Internet of

Everything”. Cisco defines Internet of Everything as “bringing together

people, process, data, and things to make networked connections more

relevant and valuable than ever, before turning information into

actions that create new capabilities, richer experiences, and

unprecedented economic opportunity for businesses, individuals, and

countries” (Cisco, 2013). Bleecker asked the question “When it is not

only "us" but also our “things” that can interpret and interact, how

does the way in which we occupy the physical world become

different?”(Bleecker, 2006).

With the Internet of Things and the Internet of Everything

software is increasingly embedded in objects and in the transduced

space around us. Code is continuously used to take actions, solve

problems and go along in everyday life (Dodge and Kitchin 215).

2.6 Chapter conclusion

In this chapter I summarized theories related to the research question.

Code and different kinds of software are explained. Software doesn’t

only have a technical role but also a cultural role. These roles are

changing with the Internet of Things where producers and consumers

46




become prosumers. The cultural and technical role of software has

influence on the gatekeeper’ s role of software and also on the degree

of agency. Human agency is explained in different gradations; the

classical definition of human agency, as well as the agency which is

regulating itself naturally by a system (Foucault), agency in software

as secondary agency and agency as an illusion for freedom of choices.

Humans are on the one hand an inside player, but on the other hand

controlled by software creators, such as its programmers and commercial

companies. Therefore software is not a neutral tool, but mediates the

world. The process where software categorizes people is called

software-sorting. Automated management is the main effect of software-

sorting.

Code is increasingly embedded in objects and space. Code is

driven by the idea that computation should be available wherever and

whenever needed; “computation should be organized around people and

their everyday lives, and not human lives around computation” (Dodge

and Kitchin 215). Code is shaping space (environment around us) and the

space is shaping code culturally and technically. The process that

transforms space from one state to another is called transduction of

space.

With above theories we saw how code, space, code/space and human agency

are applied in daily life. Now, I will apply those theories on a new

technology; augmented reality. I will use two approaches to apply the

theory.

47




In the first analysis I will use a technological approach on the

new augmented reality device Google Glass. In the theoretic framework I

started with the basics of code and software and showing how the

environment around us, is nowadays increasingly dependent on code, and

code is written to produce space. I will apply the theory of code/space

on Google Glass and its augmented reality technology. The gatekeeper’s

role of augmented reality software will be analyzed in terms of how

much control the user and the creator of software have.

The second analysis discusses five Google Glass applications. It

illustrates the augmented reality function applied to real life

situations.

Both analyses will demonstrate how augmented reality technology, such

as Google Glass and its applications, perform as gatekeeper in our

interaction with physical surroundings.

48




3. Case study: Google GlassIn this chapter I focus primarily on the wearable ubiquitous computer

Google Glass, which is a technological device designed and developed by

Google in 2012. Here Google Glass is analyzed from a technical point of

view, using a case study related to technical and technological terms,

including terms derived from the theoretical framework such as code,

software, development, open source and devices. Before introducing

Google Glass, the augmented reality technology will be discussed using

new theory.

The next chapter describes an analysis on five applications using

augmented reality technology through Google Glass.

3.1 Augmented reality

The technology “augmented reality” is providing a simulation of the

physical and real-world environment; a view of reality is modified.

Those two layers are augmented by computer-generated sensory input.

Before, the digital layer remained separate from the real. Also Lev

Manovich already defined augmented reality in his article The Poetics of

Augmented Space (2006) that “augmented space is the physical space

overlaid with dynamically changing information” (219). Augmented

reality (AR) is defined by the online Cambridge dictionary as: “images

produced by a computer and used together with a view of the real

world”. For the remainder of this thesis, the above understanding of AR

will be used.

49




To provide a more in depth understanding of the concept of the two

layers of AR and to make the concept AR less abstract, a historical

metaphor will be discussed next. Plato’s metaphor “Allegory of the

Cave” (written around 380 BC), where reality of the real world is mixed

with shadow realities inside the cave, in short is as follows:

A group of prisoners are locked in a cave and never saw daylight. They always lookat a wall of the cave, seeing nothing but shadows. The prisoners didn’t know aboutthe existence of color as they had never seen anything like that. They were tricked tobelieve that there were no other existence then shadows. At one point one of theprisoner was released from the cave and saw daylight for the very first time in hislife. When this prisoner went back into the cave and told the others about thebeautiful world outside of the cave, they thought he was becoming crazy.

The theory from this metaphor is on another different epistemological

level, but it can be framed in the technology of augmented reality.

This metaphor describes two layers, just as in the concept of AR, which

is a real world and a virtual layer (in AR: digital layer). It shows

how a view of reality is modified.

More touchable augmented reality examples are noticeable from the

1960s. In 1968 Ivan Sutherland invents the “head-mounted display10”.

Through this display the user could see computer-generated information

mixed with physical objects, such as signs on a laboratory wall

(Höllerer and Feiner 2). In the 1980s several movies were presented,

which contained a layer of augmentation (sort of animations). Wearable10 Head mounted display is a helmet or device to wear on your head as part of a helmet,which contains a display in front of one (monocular HMD) or each eye (binocular HMD). More Information can be read at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-mounted_display

50




computing became more popular when Mann created the first wearable

computer, with two layers of text and graphics on a photographically

mediated reality, or called by Mann “Augmediated Reality” (Mann 10-14).

Also games, such as ARQuake (2000) have been developed. ARQuake is the

first outdoor mobile AR game, which allows gamers to experience digital

game in a real world environment. In 2013 Google announced a new

augmented Reality technology, Google Glass (Miller, 2013). The Glass

itself is just a hardware device, but the wearable computer can be used

to have augmented reality experiences. I will introduce Google Glass

and explain the augmented reality function in the next paragraphs.

3.2 Google Glass

My aim is to introduce Google Glass and present how human beings

interact with it as a computer-generated sensory input device. It is

important to understand how Google Glass is technically working because

it determines how much human agency proceedings are available for

Google Glass users.

3.2.1 Google Glass as hardware

Google Glass operates on an android operating system. The core feature

of Google Glass is a digital layer that is placed on top of the layer

that contains an image of the real world. Google Glass is using a sort

of mini-projector, which projects a layer via a clever, semi-

transparent prism directly on the middle of the eye. The focus can be

changed using the front part of the device. In the device are several

sensory outputs, such as a proximity sensor, a light sensor and a

51




microphone for voice commands. The device weighs 45 grams and is using

technology from early 2011, such as a dual-core OMAP4430 processor, a

camera with five-megapixel resolution (2528x1856) and high-definition

video (720p).

A Google Glass device looks like normal glasses but displays

information similar to the way Facebook displays information through

its timeline interface. A Google Glass device can be controlled by

voice or touch. The only touch pad is on the side frame of the device,

where it is possible to scroll forward and backward using finger. It

allows users to control the device by swiping through a timeline-like

interface displayed on the screen. Sliding backward shows11 current

events, such as weather, and sliding forward shows past events, such as

phone calls, photos, circle updates, etc.

11These are my own experiences with a Google Glass device. All technical specs aboutGoogle Glass can be found at: <https://support.google.com/glass/answer/3064128?hl=en>

52




Figure 1: How Google Glass works12

The Google Glass has four main categories to control input/output

human-computer interaction (Also called: HCI):

1. Visual- based: The interaction based on visuals are probably the

most known in HCI studies. Examples are recognition of the

environment, face expression analysis, body movement tracking

such as game computer Kinect, gesture recognition, eyes movement

tracking, such as an iris-scan. With virtual based augmented

reality software Google Glass can use these to, for example,

recognize a building, and tell real time information about this

building.

2. Audio-Based: Interactions based on audio is dealing with

information by different audio signals. Examples of sound based

HCI are (Natural Languages Processes (NLP)to teach computerized

12Source: www.glassappsource.com/google-glass-features/google-glasses-work.html.

53




systems to understand natural human languages such as English

(Kuyper, 2014) Recognition of NLP is also called speech- or

speaker recognition, auditory emotion analysis and human made

noise or signs detections, such as Gasp, Sigh, Laugh, Cry, etc.

3. Sensor-Based: The most characteristics for sensor based

interactions are physical sensors used between users and machines

to provide the interaction, such as basic Mouse & Keyboard,

Joystick, pressure Sensors but also the earlier called haptic

Sensors. Less known are taste or smell sensors.

4. Touch-based: Most devices have displays to touch, such as

smartphones. But also all kind of push buttons or fingerprints

are touch based input. Google Glass is only using a touch pad on

the side frame of the Glass. It is possible to scroll and swiping

forward and backward. The touch is controlling the virtual layer

of Google Glass.

The overlaid information that can be seen on a Google Glass device are

for example: the weather, the time, an appointment, text messages,

directions, interior directions, a location check on a friend. To start

any interaction with this wearable ubiquitous computer, the user should

say “Ok Glass”.

Only a small group of companies and universities with related

projects can obtain a Google Glass until today. The device has been

defined as “a wearable computer” (Wikipedia). The product is designed

to augment reality with a mission of producing a mass-market ubiquitous

computer - “the idea that computers will no longer be devices we turn

54




on, but will be so integrated into our everyday environment that we can

ask them to do things without even lifting a finger” (Miller, 2013).

I was going to write about Google Glass and augmented reality

technology in this thesis, but one of the specifications that Google

recently (2013) released states that Google Glass does not currently

contain augmented reality technology. It is important to notice that

Google Glass itself never uses the term augmented reality; it is the

media who does this. However, I use the term “augmented reality” in

this thesis when speaking about Google Glass. My reason for this is:

When considering the definition of augmented reality as is described in

paragraph 3.1, Google Glass does provide technology with similar

characteristics. “The hype buzzing around the internet and tech worlds

describes the device as the next step in the fusion between the “real”

world and the digital world, ultimately what many media reports are

deeming a “true form” of augmented reality.” (Clark 5). Realities and

augmented reality are mixed experiences at exactly the same moment, in

the same place.

3.2.2 Google Glass software

Google Glass is marketed and presented to users as a hardware device.

However, it’s trivial that hardware doesn’t operate without software on

it. Google isn't yet providing a lot of software on the Google Glass

software market. Most Google Glass applications are made by

independent developers.

55




In the theoretical framework I gave a broad introduction on code and

software to understand how the “software culture” (Manovich, Software

Takes 13) “actively have [has] the power to shape people’s daily life”

(Dodge and Kitchin 10). As mentioned, there are different kinds of

software. Google Glass is a commercial device with commercial purposes.

However, unlike other commercial technology, Google Glass does not

exclude users from participating in the process of making software

applications. Google opts for a mixed openness, independent programmers

are free to develop applications and use API’s. They do need approval

to publish their applications. Porn apps, for example, are forbidden.

They are on one hand defining rules and instructions users cannot

change, such as the hardware, the way the system works and Google

Glass’ main features. On the other hand some code is freely accessible

and can be developed in a public and collaborative manner. Google Glass

has two open API’s that can be used separately or together (Google

Glass, 2013). Also Stephen Lau, a Google engineer explained:

“Not to bring anybody down… but seriously… we intentionally left the deviceunlocked so you guys could hack it and do crazy fun [stuff] with it. I mean, you paid$1500 for it… go to town on it. Show me something cool.” (Lau, 2013)

Google Glass in-house developers released the Linux-specific source

code which is compatible with augmented reality devices based on

android. The source is shared at code.google.com and at a popular open

source website/ project, started by Linux creator Linus Torvalds, named

GitHub. Programmers and developers can manage, publish, and share code

with each other. Google lets people explore how this emerging

technology can be tailored to the commercial business industry.

56




According to Terra Nova, the idea of having people explore commercial

products with open source is based on ‘free labor’ (Terranova 91).

The ‘society–factory’ describes a process whereby ‘work processes have shifted fromthe factory to society, thereby setting in motion a truly complex machine’ (Terranova74)

In case of Google Glass free labor is applicable, because independent

developers are producing and exploring new applications on Google

Glass. If Google likes it enough, they will buy the application and add

this software to their own license. Van Dijck is calling those

independent developers and programmers “unknown soldier[s]” (54), which

Terranova compares to Fordism during the industrial revolution. Fordism

is a notion of an economic and social system, which is based on

industrialization and standardization of mass production. During the

industrial revolution factories start to use special purpose machinery

and unskilled workers to make mass productions possible. People are

working in factories, becoming a part of the machine itself, and thus

unknown soldiers of the factory13.

Nowadays, independent developers are giving away their source

code and information for free. Google Glass is using this free labor to

develop new applications. Van Dijck is concluding that the metaphor of

“unknown soldiers” has come to define the concept of user agency (54).

As mentioned in paragraph 2.4., human agency is about controlling

conscious own choices and suggests physical actions (such as

interactions with technologies). The concept of Google selling its

Google Glass device for money and keeping the source code open, is a13 More information about Fordism can be find at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordism

57




good example of what Van Dijck means with his metaphor. On the one hand

the human agency stays within the rules and protocols of the original

creators (Google), but on the other hand it allows independent

developers (human agency) to embed customized information. To aid

independent developers in their process of creating applications,

Google launched the Glass Development Kit (GDK). It contains API’s that

for instance can facilitate communication on how information is placed

on the timeline in a user’s interface. All kind of features are

described in open API’s. These API’s can be integrated with other

API’s, such as Wikipedia.

A Google Glass application using API’s is Layar14. The user of the

application can scan surroundings or just a particular object, using

voice control or a by blinking with his or her eyes. Additional

information is augmented in the Google Glass screen. Layar is also

using augmented reality for smartphones. The difference is that the

augmented reality component of Google Glass is a much more natural fit

with a heads up display than AR on smartphones. Google Glass is still

new, “the amount and variety of information you can access with Layar

will depend on the company's database of information” (Guide & Low,

2014).

3.3 Computer input device

14 Layar is a Dutch company based in Amsterdam, founded in 2009. Layar is the world's leading platform for augmented reality and interactive print. They enable publishers and advertisers to enrich their print material with engaging digital experiences – allwithout hiring developers or installing software (Layar, 2014). More information aboutthis company can be found on: www.layar.com/augmented-reality.

58

http://www.layar.com/augmented-reality




Google Glass turns the user into living software as a “computer input

device” (Carr, 2013). Before, a Human Interaction Device (HID) was the

input for an electronic system. Common examples are keyboards, mice,

computer speakers, webcams and headsets. These interaction input

devices are providing an interface between the user and the computer.

Another new technology, for gaming, is the Kinect, which is providing a

fixed camera for the gamer and which interacts with the computer

without the need of a game controller. The Kinect is using input

sensors by spoken commands and physical movements of the gamer.

With Google Glass, the user becomes a computer pointer, we

control the physical view and the input, but the software controls the

digital interface and additional image. With pointer I mean that the

focus of the input of software becomes automatically in our vision when

seeing for example a building and we like to know more information

about that building. This will be shown more in next chapter. The user

becomes a computer input device, a first person point of view15, and

the environment around in the vision of the Glass becomes a computer

display. A good example is the experiment of a surgery using Google

Glass. The Ohio State University College16 made it possible to see the

surgery from the first point of view of the surgeon. The Google Glass

computer doesn’t need a controller or HID between user and environment

anymore. In this example, a device is still being used, but hands are

free to use. Vision of the real world and the virtual layer are15 The first-person point is a term used by writers and film makers. They use the term for examplefor the main protagonist of the story. The first person view is used primarily forautobiographical writing, such as a personal essay. 16 More information on the surgery application made by Ohio State University College, with GoogleGlass, can be find at: badgerherald.com/news/2014/03/24/google-glass-vet-school/#.U5s07PmSxvF

59




augmented. This is a new step in the long history of software and

computers.

Google Glass is turning the reality layer into a simulation of

itself which is in the same discourse of Foucault’s notion about

reality: “Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue

of multiple forms of constraint” (Foucault, 1991). Is the reality /

physical layer the only truth? Since augmented reality displays both,

one can say that our view of augmented reality becomes real, because

there is now a mixed world of reality and digital information.

3.4 Intelligent augmented reality

The technology “augmented reality” is as mentioned before, providing a

simulation of the physical and real-world environment. The simulation

and the virtual layers are augmented by computer-generated sensory

input. These two layers always have interactions. New elements in the

augmented reality Human-Computing Interactions (HCI) design is the use

of “intelligent HCI”. This means that interfaces interact with users,

such as speech enabled interfaces with the use of natural language.

Important in the interaction with users and devices is the feedback

based on previous interactions, and how the system is giving

informational feedback to optimize the HCI design.

HCI in augmented reality is improving so fast that even the

layers between the real- and virtual world are fading away and they are

getting mixed together. Examples are HCI designs in games, smartphones,

GPS and wearable computers. For instance mobile phones, with an

augmented reality feature, can be pointed at a hotel and with this, we

60




can directly see which rooms are available, the prices of the rooms and

how the hotel looks like from inside. It is not necessary anymore to

search for information in books or manually search on the internet.

Also wearable computers, such as Google Glass are new augmented reality

technologies, which will become the future. Wearable computers are

making augmented reality features more accessible, because it is as if

they merge technology with body senses. For example if using the Google

Glass and the device is showing precisely the geographic located

position, such as Tom-tom, and show, where to go using arrows on the

screen. The Tom-tom GPS function is now integrated in the view of the

user, the human becomes the human computer device, which becomes a new

kind of map, an augmented map. Google Glass allows you to perceive

information in real time, straight in front of the face. The user

doesn’t have to use a separated device using his or her hands. More on

this in chapter 4 of this thesis.

3.5 Chapter conclusion

This chapter explains how Google Glass works from the hardware point of

view, as well as the software point of view. I did so, to apply the

importance of Plato’s allegory of the cave, which is still applicable

to today’s notion on augmented reality. It is important that the

influence of the old cave theory is still applicable to today’s

augmented reality, such as Google Glass, where augmented reality is

changing the way the users see the world. The way how this is changing

is for example how to interact with the environment with augmented

reality, where reality and virtual are combined realistically. It

61




becomes realistic, because users are becoming a computer-generated

sensory input. Human are becoming closer to the device itself; it is

not controlled by a joystick, keyboard etc. anymore, the user is

controlling the input of the device by voice or movements. Wearable and

sensory input devices are a change with all kinds of electronic tools

or interfaces before. With Google Glass the interface between the user

and the environment the reality layer turns into a simulation of

itself. Because the computer displays both, a mixed world of reality

and augmented reality exists.

Augmented reality is introduced and I do not think people realize

what impact augmented reality will have on the near future of society.

This I will show in the next chapter; I will analyze five applications

to show how daily life can be changed with augmented reality.

62




4.Analysis: Five applications for Google GlassThe five applications are showing how augmented reality software with

Google Glass is defining our lives and shaping our world. Interactive

augmented reality is possible by developing the right software

applications for Google Glass. The five applications all have the same

structure. First the application is introduced. Then, the technical

theory about the augmented reality software is given. The three other

paragraphs are structured the same as the theoretical framework; Agency

(including human agency, secondary agency and illusion of agency),

software-sorting (including automated management) and the theory about

code/space (including transduced space, coded spaces, codejects and the

internet of things).

4.1 Word Lens

The Word Lens application17 developed by Otavio Good18, owner of the

commercial company Quest Visual19 is a real-time translator: “to see

the world in your own languages” is the slogan of Word Lens developer.

Word Lens can translate spoken languages and printed letters, such as

road signs, menu’s, newspapers and other pointers in the environment

around us in thirty languages. The Google Glass user is looking at the

17 More information about the application in Google play, including a demo video can befind at: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.questvisual.wordlens.demo18 Otavio Good is a computer programmer from America and owner of the company Quest Visual. More information about Good can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otavio_Good19 More information can be find at http://questvisual.com/ and http://allthingsd.com/20131119/new-google-glass-apps-will-translate-the-world-from-your-eyes-and-other-tricks/

63




text, have to hold your head still for a couple of seconds and the

translation is presented in view. The translation is usable in real-

time, also can be paused. The display shows the translation and in the

meantime the user can look up other alternative languages of each

separated word in the frame. Also screenshots of the translated text is

possible to create, store and use later. The purpose of developing the

application was first for leisure, to make travelling in other

countries with a different language easier.

The picture (Shewan, 2014) below displays a screenshot of the

user’s view through Google Glass. The bigger picture is what the user

sees without using the application. This is the simulated real layer

what the user sees without any device through his eyes. The layer in

the upper right corner is what the user sees through the Google Glass,

after using the translation. Of course the ranges are limited because

of the built-in camera of the Glasses. When seeing the letters of the

road sign, it is overwritten, the real layer into a new translated

augmented simulation of reality.

64




Figure 2: Word Lens view through Google Glass (Shewan, 2014)

4.1.1 Augmented reality Software

For the application no network connection is required, after the user

installed the languages pack. But to save storage and get the last up

to date version, it is better to use it connected to the internet. It’s

commercial closed software. It’s commercial because Word Lens doesn’t

share their code on open source platform. Users also have to pay an

amount of money. They use the API from Google translate and build an

own database of 10.000 words and it’s also not sharable for other

companies.

65




The Google Glass application distinguishes from other devices

because the user doesn’t have to hold a device anymore, just wear the

device. The translation is therefore straight in the view of the user.

It looks naturally and the real and virtual layers are merged in one:

Word Lens is using augmented reality technology to translate the text.

4.1.2 Agency

The user can have own agency to simulate and manipulate the virtual

layer; one can decide what to translate by focusing the built-in camera

on the text for a certain amount of seconds. It is also possible to put

the pause the application.

The cultural settings of the applications also have limitations.

Despite the wide range of freedom of agency, the user must adhere to

the protocols and frameworks provided by the application. The

recognizing function, with the build-in camera of Google Glass, is best

working for some kind of letter typography, such as Helvetica and Sans-

serif fonts. The common use typography “Times New Roman is a

challenge”, according to Quest Visual. Another limitation is the

integrated database of 10.000 words and the grammar interpretations per

language.

4.1.3 Software-sorting

The software that the Word Lens is based on, doesn’t categorize humans

and neither does it control humans. No software-sorting takes place

through Word Lens.

66




4.1.4 Code/space

The Word Lens application enables the user to effectively and

efficiently translate text. Suppose the battery of the Google Glass

runs low, will the user still be able to understand the text which he

or she is seeing? There might be other solutions; one can use a paper

version of a dictionary or ask another person, etcetera. Thus, the

space here as described in the theoretical framework of this thesis,

isn’t necessarily dependent on the use of software. Hence, this would

imply that in this case, the term “coded space” applies and not

“code/space”.

At the moment the user sees the real-time translation, the

languages may became understandable. For example if the user can’t read

Russian language, now it is changing to a readable text in an own

languages. The influence of this change might have influence on the

user’s interaction with the physical space around. The translation with

Word Lens thus is an individuation as described according to the theory

of “transduction” of space, where such incremental step transduces the

aforementioned coded space from one state into another.

4.2 Application ‘Watch your privacy’

An application developed by a Dutch artist, Sander Veenhof20 recently

April 2014. The application shows all kind of cameras in the

environment around the Google Glass user. Made as an experiment how to

deal with the latest discussions about privacy and Google Glass. He

20 More information about Sander Veenhof can be found on his personal website: http://sndrv.com/

67




started the experiment to show how the world become programmable and

can use new media technology to solve actual problems. According to

Veenhof are only in the Netherlands around 1 million surveillance

cameras, which become a discussion on human’s privacy, since they can

always track and trace everybody. “Google Glass a privacy problem? It can also be

the solution for those worried about with privacy: buy a Google Glass!”(Veenhof, 2014) But

Veenhof mentioned that he is an augmented reality artist and not a

software developer. It is made to real-time visualize nearby privacy

intrusions in our environment around us.

Figure 3: Camera detection (Veenhof, 2014)

As is shown in the above picture (Veenhof, 2014), the application

presents a certain kind of green zone, where one can stand without

being detected by cameras. The red zones represent spots where one is

68




detected by cameras. The application can detect surveillance cameras in

public space, but it can also detect Google Glass cameras. In a video21

Veenhof demonstrates how the application is working.

4.2.1 Augmented reality Software

“Augmented reality meets open data”, is the slogan Veenhof use. The

cameras are detected based on open data worldwide. The application is

using API open data from “Open Street Map”. Open data developed by

OSMcamera22. It provides open access to data collections, such as what

type of camera (webcam, night view, public camera’s, private camera’s

etc.), fixed or not, the latitude, the owner and sometimes providing

the website and contact details. There is also an option to select a

type of camera or shift the results of the camera’s in the Google Glass

screen with other information. For example just on certain times, or

just in certain areas.

Also it is getting data from the augmented reality application

Layar. The application can also detect other Google Glass users, even

it can detect the real camera, it is using “the latitude/ longitude coordinates

of each Google Glass user.” It is a typical application using other (open)

data (open street map, OSMcamera, Layar and geographical data) to

gather and interact with the users view based on the users location

data.

21 The video can be found on: http://sndrv.com/watchyourprivacy/22 Information and the map of OSMcamera is online at: http://osmcamera.tk/

69




4.2.2 Human Agency

“The app gives the illusion of a privacy solution, but also deliver[s]

your privacy. So it has a double layer” (Veenhof, 2014). The user can

have own agency seeing on the layer where cameras are around. But also

the other way around, other users of the application can find users of

Google Glass because every user of the application is visible to

others. When using it, it is directly (real-time) uploading your

location data online. This gives agency to other users to see who is

spying you and the other way around.


The software that the application is based on, doesn’t categorize

humans in the sense how Graham is defining his theory about software-

sorting, it neither actively discipline citizens, such Dodge and

Kitchin mention their theory about automated management. But when this

open data is connected with other software, such as “face recognition

technology” (see ¶4.3) it can combine the geographic information about

these cameras and also record who or what is present in a certain

place, for example, using face recognition software.

4.2.4 Code/space

The “coded space” in “Watch your privacy” is an environment based on

adding code to the space environment around us, by using open

databases. The code and space are not mutually constituted and depend

on each other (it might not be code/space) but just makes a difference

to the spatial environment. Using an indexing mechanism (Dodge and Kitchin 47)

which connect data information and process information with each other

70




and with people; the internet of things (Ashton, 2009). For example, using the

‘Watch your privacy’ to detect camera’s is making the user aware of the

privacy intrusions in our environment around. It helps to detect and to

prepare situation beforehand. However, if the software of the

application crashes, the user can still detect the camera’s and can

still walk, bike, drive etc. in the space around, but perhaps not as

effectively and efficiently as when the software worked.

Cameras are becoming “Codejects” (Dodge and Kitchin 56). The code

provided by open data platforms can be used to change interactions in

the environment around us. It can be used for surveillance, but also

the ‘criminals’ can use the open data to pick the best spot without

registered camera.

4.3 Face recognition technology

Certain computer applications can automatically identify, recognize or

verify faces. This is a typical tool used in security systems, such as

military, law enforcement or in airports (Jansen, 2010). The software

runs on pre-programmed scripts that analyses specific facial

characteristics, such as the relative position, size and shape of the

nose, eyes, jaw and cheekbones of a person (Jansen, 2010). With Google

Glass it could also be used in a social way, as social media are

providing information about humans.

71




Figure 4: Example face recognition (Kuyper, 2014)

In the above picture a user’s view is simulated in the real world and

the Google Glass recognition technology in the right upper corner. The

recognition has the same output as surveillance technology with facial

or behavior recognition through cameras.

In some cities in China, such as Shenzhen, are thousands of

cameras placed, by the Government, which determine behavior- and face

recognition software (De Waal 239). These cameras analyze behavior in

public spaces and recognize faces to track and analyze people. With

certain pre-programmed scripts it finds the ‘not normal’ (according to

72




the creators of the software) behaviors and can track people by face

recognition to directly locate them (239).

A recently developed face recognition application for Google Glass

called NameTag, enables a user to look up a face in an online database,

including Google’s own database with a million of images. NameTag is

created by Kevin Alan Tussy and he shows how the software is working in

a video23. “The real world is about to become a much more connected

place” according to Tussy. Beside Google’s database, the application

co-operates with dating site Match.com, the National Sex Offender

Registry with 450.000 criminal records. It will provide information

that includes contact information, social media profiles, interests,

hobbies and passions and anything else the person likes to share with

the world. When a user focuses the built-in camera of the Google Glass

on a face, either on a photo or live in person, the NameTag application

will then try to find a match for this face in all available and

aforementioned databases. If there is a match, information about the

person behind the face will appear as an additional layer on the Google

Glass screen.

4.3.1 Augmented reality software

The aforementioned additional layer will appear as a digital layer on

top of the layer that contains the image of the real world presentation

of the face. Thus, both layers are visible on the Google Glass screen

23 NameTag video presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVwBXr_nU9Q

73




in a combined way. In other words, the physical and digital worlds are

augmented.

The difference with the application on Google Glass is that

social media is no longer limited to screens, desktops, tablets and

smartphones. “With the NameTag app running on Google Glass a user can

simply glance at someone nearby and instantly see that person’s name,

occupation and even visit their Facebook, Instagram or Twitter profiles

in real-time”(Tussy, 2014).

4.3.2 Human Agency

The NameTag application is currently still in its Beta phase. In the

future NameTag plans to work together with social media sites, aiming

to have social media site members decide whether NameTag is allowed to

use its face recognition technology to retrieve a member´s data in the

database of the social platform that this member is registered on. In

terms of human agency it will imply that “it’s not about invading

anyone’s privacy; it’s about connecting people that want to be

connected” (Tussy, 2014). To use facial recognition applications such

as NameTag, it will perform as a Panoptic view, such Foucault explain

that power regulates through the system itself. This Panoptic view is

used in many situations such as Big Brother, public cameras and other

surveillance situation. But the meaning of a self-regulating system

doesn’t work when both have the same agency. These power structures are

not working because the user knows exactly how one is being

surveillance. Might be logical that face recognition software, when

used for personal use such as Google Glass, is not ex- or including

74




certain behavior or habits. It doesn’t have a surveillance fuction as

used in Chinese cities or at airports.


Face recognition software, like NameTag or the software on which the

cameras run as described in paragraph 5.4, do not provide software-

sorting as is defined in the theoretical framework of this thesis

(¶2.4); this software doesn’t categorize nor does it control people.

However, due to the software linking to several databases, this face

recognition software forms one system with those databases, where the

software represents the front end and the databases the back end of

this system. It is possible that data in those databases is derived

from software-sorting applications at the back end. It is assumable

that most data is entered by humans (social media site members, police

officers, etc.), but supposedly there would be e-commerce behavior

data24 regarding people in those databases; this data would possibly be

inserted into the database as a result of software processing data

regarding the behavior of a person. Within this context, if one

considers the actual face recognition application (front end) and e-

commerce application providing data for databases (back end) as one

system, then in this whole face recognition process software-sorting

does take place.

24 E-commerce behaviour data refers to data resulting from purchase patterns fromcustomers on e-commerce websites such as amazon.com. E-commerce is defined as“Commercial transactions conducted electronically on the Internet.” (Oxford UniversityPress : www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/e-commerce)

75




4.3.4 Code/space

The augmented reality function in face recognition software is called

by Dodge and Kitchin coded space. The space is transduced by software

on the Google Glass, but is not dependent on the function of the

recognition software. When the recognition software on the Google Glass

fails, the space can still be transduced; it will change from one till

another status, but not as easy (efficient, effective and productive)

as if the process of the software was mediated (262).

When assuming that when face recognition technology is

constructed in space that is dependent on the software and its

application, the technology is according to Dodge and Kitchin more

code/space instead of coded spaces. The code is essential to the form

and meaning of the physical space and its function. Without the

recognizing function the extra detailed information is not provided.

Exception is when the user of the application meet somebody he or she

knows, the details an application such as NameTag will be

superfluously.

4.4 Interactive augmented reality

The interdisciplinary research laboratory Hypermorgen25, part of

FutureScope, is going a step further. They build forward on the concept

augmented reality on Google Glass and make a third layer to make the

augmentation interactive. A good video26 from FutureScope is explaining

25 Information about the research lab, part of FutureScope can be find on:http://futurescope.co/about26 The video can be watched at: “futurescope.co/post/59381258814/interactive-augmented-reality-using-google-glass

76




interactive augmented reality in Google Glass. They demonstrate that

Google Glass is able to show augmented reality perceptions. In the

video at their website is showed that real time made annotations are

provided by a remote user and is sent directly to Google Glass, this

enabling “interactive augmented reality” (FutureScope, 2013).

In figure 5 Interactive augmented reality a screenshot is presented of

their interactive augmented reality experiment. In the Screenshot is

the left frame of the augmented layer; it is the Google Glass screen

merge real and digital layer together. The right upper frame a still

photo is showed, where the digital annotation can be done by the user.

These digital annotations are also seeable at the augmented layer. The

right below frame is the real physical world; how we see the world

without any virtual or augmented layer. So, the two layers on the right

side are merged together and augmented in the left Google Glass screen.

77




Figure 5: Screenshot Interactive augmented reality (FutureScope, 2014)


The interactive augmented reality application is made with open source

and part of the openglass.us project. The digital annotations are made

with another open source from picar.us. All code is shared and available

at Github.com/bwhite/openglass. The augmented reality annotations are real

life seen.

4.4.2 Human Agency

The user can have own agency to manipulate the virtual layer in real

time. A user can interact virtually with a user in the real world.

78

https://github.com/bwhite/openglass

http://openglass.us/





The software that the augmented reality interaction is based on,

doesn’t categorize humans and neither does it control humans. No

software-sorting takes place.

4.4.4 Code/space

The augmented layer here can be seen as a code/space; when the software

or hardware fails, this whole layer doesn’t even exists. The code here

creates the purpose of the space. Without this code we can’t do here

what we initially wanted to do. Hence, the space here is totally

dependent of the code.

4.5 Google Project Glass augmented reality glasses

Google Glass has a secret lab focused on long-term projects. One of the

research topics is augmented reality on Google Glass. Already a couple

of external applications are developing augmented reality features. But

Google already announced to develop an augmented reality application or

platform with all Google’s services integrated, such as voice commands,

chat, location check-ins, Google Maps and much more.

One of the companies already familiar with augmented reality

applications is Layar, already introduced in paragraph 3.3.2. In a

video27 they explain how Layar is working and all possibilities on

Google Glass. Important to notice is that Layar not only provide own

augmented reality functions, also offers developers a platform with

27 The video from Layar can be watched on: http://youtu.be/rBPmG5mqWfI

79




tools for creating an own augmented reality application, working on

Layar. Therefore, there are many possibilities for Google Glass users.

Figure 6: Layer images with Google Glass (Layar promo video, 2014)

In the first (left-above) image the user scans a train departure

information screen at a railway station, by scanning the screen, the

Google Glass screen shows layer of information. The second image

(right-above) is the Brooklyn Bridge. The Google Glass screen is

augmenting the real image with showing digital information about

heights and length. The third (left-down) image shows the user look

into a magazine and is looking up more information about the commercial

of Funda, a real estate. The fourth image (right-down) is showing that

the user is looking to the advertising of a cinema movie. By scanning

the poster the Google Glass shows a trailer about the movie.

80




Beside Layar are also other augmented reality applications

applicable to Google Glass, such Google Goggles. The main function of

Layar and Goggles are: image recognition software through the built-in

camera to read text and/or buildings/landmarks in order to provide

associated content/annotations and location-based.


The application Layar is based on augmented reality software. It

augments images from the physical world to capture pictures with the

built-in camera and combines it with geographical information to

determine the exact position of the device. This geographical

information is used to combine points of interest on top of the picture

coming from the camera.

Layar provide many layers, such as Wikipedia information, Google

Maps, cinema information, real estate information, search for the

nearest ATM-machine, rating systems for restaurants, but also rating

systems for government about trash places, parks and waiting cue’s at

museums. The individual developers creating the applications with

Layar’s services, can determine by themselves the layer is given away

for free or the user must pay for it to get access.

4.5.2 Human Agency

With the application Layer “secondary agency” described by Mackenzie is

applicable because data can be processed and make own situations

without human based on the users input. The secondary agency layer is

not in the Google Glass itself, it is their own applications databases

81




agency. Layer working together with API’s from Streetview, real estate

and other databases are communicating as a system working on itself

with coded scripts. In terms of human agency the application is not

surveillance humans, it surveillance data to collect and present to

humans.


It depends on the layer or the application made with augmented reality

technologies the software is categories people and objects. Most

people, things and processes are already sorted by companies,

government or others beforehand.

4.5.4 Code/space

When thinking through the relationship between code and objects;

codejects (Dodge and Kitchin 54), characteristics are programmability,

interactivity and capacity to remembering (54). Now the objects became

all virtual codejects, explained in ¶2.5.4., within the augmented

reality application. The code and the object are depending on each

other. The virtual objects are embedded with software. The software is

the primary function to scan the object, called by Dodge and Kitchin

“hard Codejects” (56). For example when looking to a building, an

augmented image appears to the Google Glass screen. The building is

virtually provided by code to see the extra information from the

database.

The environment of these coded objects will stay the same. The

buildings are still the same as in the physical environment. The code

82




and space are not mutually constituted and depend on each other,

therefor augmented reality tag applications, such as Layar, is coded

spaces.

4.6 Chapter Conclusion

In the chapter before (3.1) the technology “augmented reality” has been

introduced and applied on Google Glass. Google Glass provides a

simulation of the physical and real-world environment. The modified

view of reality becomes a non-physical “intelligible” world which

humans can see right in front of them.

4.6.1 Human Agency

In all augmented reality applications, users have agency to let Google

Glass create an augmented layer of reality and a virtual layer; the

user can decide when Google Glass should do this, by blinking with his

or her eye or providing voice commands. All applications are using the

geographical sensory input or the built-in camera of the Google Glass

device. On the one hand users are free to choose how the input will be,

on the other hand are the cultural settings of the applications limited

by the regulations of the application itself. This can be called the

illusion of agency.

Augmented reality software on Google Glass has an own “secondary

agency” as described by Mackenzie. Assuming the hardware device Google

Glass and the software applications are compatible. The augmented

reality feature becomes a “virtual relational producer” because the

relational producer operates and communicate virtual (augmented layer)

83




across. Characteristics of the relational producer are communicating

with each other; codes (software) communicate with the hardware (Google

Glass) and both communicate with the infrastructures (databases and

databases accessible by API’s and open source).


Augmented reality applications on the Google Glass don’t have a

systematic distinguish of categorizing humans, objects, processes or

groups. That means that software-sorting isn’t applicable in the theory

according to Graham. But although Graham has mostly a negative approach

on the effects of software-sorting (categorizing, controlling and

excluding people), it can be applied on augmented reality technology in

another way. Where the focus is not on human surveillance, but more on

data surveillance and clustering to make it humans easier. For example

to cluster speed data at highways, to inform you through the augmented

layer of Google Glass about the maximum speed, such as TomTom is doing.

Also application such as mentioned in the five application are

clustering camera’s in public space, clusters information or the

fastest way to the museum. Much the same Amazon.com or real estate

websites and applications are clustering the cheapest products for

users. The interaction with the physical environment is made more

transparent. With an augmented reality function of Google Glasses

applications it will be a more direct and natural layer to use for its

interactions.

84




4.6.3 Code/space

Augmented reality software on the Google Glass is characterized by

“coded spaces” and not “code/space”. The code and space in augmented

reality software is not mutually constituted and depend on the

(physical) environment, it will make a difference to the spatial

environment, but when the software is failing, the user can get its

function from somewhere else. Perhaps not as effectively and

efficiently as when the software worked.

85




5. Conclusion and DiscussionAs I have stated in the introduction, the aim in this thesis was to

explore the gatekeeper characteristics in Google Glass, being augmented

reality technology, in our interactions with the physical (real)

environment around us. Furthermore, I aimed to investigate what this

gatekeeper role of Google Glass means for human agency. I have done so

by providing a theoretical framework. I have also introduced the term

“augmented reality” and described Google Glass in a technical way as a

basis for my analysis.

Every chapter in this thesis has its own conclusion. In this final

chapter I will provide a definite conclusion, which will also lead to

an answer to the research question of this thesis:

How might augmented reality technology, such as Google Glass, perform as a gatekeeper in our

interaction with physical surroundings and what does it mean for human agency?

Since Google Glass, in this thesis considered augmented reality

technology, is still in its early phase, it is important to know what

impact augmented reality has on daily life. In the case study from

chapter 3, augmented reality is introduced.

Augmented reality software on Google Glass has “secondary

agency”, assuming the hardware and the software applications are

compatible. The augmented reality feature becomes a “virtual relational

producer” because the relational producer operates and communicate

virtual (augmented layer) across.

86




From a technical point of view is human agency imbedded in Google

Glass and the degree of how much control the user has, to develop and

add personal settings. Also the open source platform makes it possible

to create own software for independent developers. Users are not only

users; creators are not only producers anymore: everybody can be a

‘prosumer’. It is essential to understand software as how we deal with

the environment (space) around us. Google Glass is a device you have to

wear or take it off (wearable computer), everybody has a choice to use

the device, similar with mobile phones.

Augmented reality technology is in my opinion a new media

technology that increases the ‘illusion of agency’. Google Glass is for

example assuming that the user is an inside player: “It gives the

impression that human are the central character in the process” (Klein,

2011).

Even though augmented reality applications for Google Glass don’t

really do software-sorting (kind of gatekeeper to control humans),

augmented reality technology provides data surveillance and clustering.

Therefore, the interaction with the physical environment is made more

transparent through data collections. With augmented reality the

spatial environment around humans become a sort of three-dimensional

touchscreen placed in front of the real world. What it ultimately comes

down to is that abstract data suddenly is presented in a much more

natural way, making people better understand what the data means and

how they fit together. Hence, Google Glass, being augmented reality

technology, shifts human centralized surveillance towards data

surveillance. In terms of gatekeeper this means that Google Glass

87




determines which data and information we are able to receive, process

and deliver. Nowadays, technologies are the key gatekeepers in daily

life, agency is moving away from human to things.

New technologies such as Google Glass will change the society,

because it completely changes the way we receive and send information

through technology. The development of augmented space will be

integrated in daily life experience by unconscious interactions between

code and space, it will “feel natural, spontaneous, human” (Dodge and

Kitchin, 242).

If Google Glass will indeed achieve the status of the ‘killer-

app’ that many predict it to become, it will have a tremendous impact

on how we experience and interact with our environment.

88




5.1 Discussion

Perhaps it is worth it, to investigate further debate around Google

Glass and our interactions with the physical, as well social

surroundings with the use of Google Glass and its applications itself.

With collecting, recording, analyzing and attempting data and

experience to uncover the deeper meaning and significance of human

behavior and experience by using Google Glass, a more qualitative

research can be produced.

89




Acknowledgement This research for my thesis is to graduate for the Master New Media and

Digital Cultures (MA). The research would not have been possible

without the support of many people and all the facilities of the

University of Amsterdam (UvA) and Create-It, part of Amsterdam

University of Applied Science (HvA) and not to forget my perfect

working space during last seven days I finalize this thesis in Jakarta,

Indonesia.

I would like to express the gratitude to my supervisor, dhr. dr. B.G.M.

(Martijn) de Waal, assistant professor at the MA-program in Journalism

in the department of Media Studies, Faculty of Humanities at the

University of Amsterdam (UvA), who was abundantly helpful and offered

invaluable assistance, support and guidance during meetings to discuss

and review the progress of my writings. I am thankful to all co-

students of my last subject ‘ubiquitous computing’, coordinating by

dhr. dr. J.A.A. Simons, also the second reader for this thesis, for

discussions and presentation during seminars. Thanks for those who

intensively provided English language support:

o Agung Udijana, MA

o Kim Oorebeek and Brad Clark,

o Pim Kuyper.

And also special thanks to family and friends for the critical notes,

discussions and love;

o Agung Udijana, MA.

o Pim Kuyper,

o Annemiek Heggers,

90




o Maaike de Groot,

o Ans Hoffius,

-Annika Kuyper, June 26th, 2014. Jakarta-Cibubur, Indonesia.

91




BibliographyAllen, Thomas J., and Stephen I. Cohen. "Information flow in research

and development laboratories." Administrative Science Quarterly (1969): 12-

19.

Ashton, Kevin. "That ‘internet of things’ thing." RFiD Journal 22 (2009):

97-114.

“Augmented reality”. Cambridge dictionary. Cambridge University Press,

2014. Web. <dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/augmented-

reality>

Baron, Sheldon. “Pilot control.” In: Wiener EL, Nagel DC, editors.

Human factors in aviation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. (1988):347–386.

Berry, David M. “Introduction.” Life in Code and Software. OpenHumanities

Press / Living Books about Life, 2012.

Bleecker, Julian. "A Manifesto for Networked Objects—Cohabiting with

Pigeons." Arphids and Aibos in the Internet of Things (Why Things Matter), Blog (2006).

Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong. Programmed visions: Software and memory. Mit Press,

2011.

Clark, Andy. Natural-born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future

of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. Print.

Deuze, Mark. Media Work. Cambridge: Polity, 2007.

Dodge M. and R. Kitchin. Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life

(MIT Press, Cambridge MA). 2011.

“Feedback”. Oxford Dictionairy of the English Languages, 2014. By

Oxford University Press. Updated in 2009. Web.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feedback

Foucault, Michel, et al., eds. The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality.

92

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/augmented-reality

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/augmented-reality




University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Foucault, Michel (1998) The History of Sexuality: The Will to Knowledge, London,

Penguin.

Fuller, Matthew. ‘Introduction: The Stuff of Software,’ in Software

Studies: A Lexicon(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), pp. 1-14

Gartner inc. Gartner Says Worldwide Tablet Sales Grew 68 Percent in

2013, With Android Capturing 62 Percent of the Market. March 2014.

<http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/267421>.

“Gatekeeper”. Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, 2014. By

Oxford University Press. Updated in 2009. Web.

<www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gatekeeper>

“Google Glass.” — Google Developers. N.p., n.d. Web.

<https://developers.google.com/glass/about>.

“Google Glass.” Google Glass. N.p., n.d. Web.

<http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/>.

“Google Glass.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Apr. 2013. Web.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass>.

Graham, Stephen DN. “Software-sorted geographies.” Progress in Human

Geography 29.5 (2005): 562-580.

Graham, Stephen DN. “Welcome to the Software-Sorted Society.” British

Academy Review, 10 (2007): 6-10.

Graham, Stephen, and David Wood. "Digitizing surveillance:

categorization, space, inequality." Critical Social Policy 23.2 (2003): 227-

248.

Hartley, John. Communication, cultural and media studies: The key concepts.

Routledge, 2002.

93

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Glass

https://developers.google.com/glass/about

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gatekeeper

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2674215




Henney, Kevlin. The Road to Code, Code versus Software. blog at

Artima. August 25, 2004.

Höllerer, Tobias, and Steve Feiner. "Mobile augmented reality.

"Telegeoinformatics: Location-Based Computing and Services. Taylor and Francis Books Ltd.,

London, UK 21 (2004).

Krotz, Friedrich. "Mediatization: A concept with which to grasp media

and societal change." Mediatization: concept, changes, consequences (2009): 21-

40.

Im-Pact. “The Feedback Loop. Responding to clients needs”. 01 (2003):2.

Online. http://spmresourcecentre.net/iprc/assets/File/PN1_FBL.pdf

Jansen, Cory. “Facial Recognition Software”. Technopedia. Web.

<http://www.techopedia.com/definition/26948/facial-recognition-

software>

Kerssens, Michael and Annika Kuyper. Software Analysis. Website of

Masters of Media “digitalmethods”. 2013.

<https://www.digitalmethods.net/MoM/SoftwareAnalysis>

Kitchin R. The programmable city, Environment and Planning B: Planning

and Design, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2011:p.945-51.

Klein, Norman M. The Vatican to Vegas. New Press, 2004.

Klein, Norman M. “A New Stage: Norman Klein on the Future of Scripted

Spaces”. vimeo. 2012. Web 30 mei 2014. <vimeo.com/17008887>.

Livingston, Steven, and W. Lance Bennett. "Gatekeeping, indexing, and

live-event news: Is technology altering the construction of news?."

Political Communication, 20.4 (2003): 363-380.

Mackenzie Adrian, Cutting Code: Software and Sociality (Peter Lang, New

York) 2006.

94




Mackenzie, Adrian. "The Performativity of Code Software and Cultures of

Circulation." Theory, Culture & Society 22.1 (2005): 71-92.

Mackenzie, A. Transductions: Bodies and Machines at Speed. New York:

Continuum (2002).

Mann, Steve. "Eye am a camera: Surveillance and sousveillance in the

glassage." Time Magazine 2 (2012).

Manovich, Lev. “Software Takes Command” (New York: Bloomsberry, 2008),

Manovich, Lev. “The Poetics of Augmented Space.” Visual Communication

(2006): 219-240.

Manovich, Lev. "Cultural software." From new introduction to Software Takes

Command manuscript (2011).

Miller, Clair Cain. Google Searches for Style. New York Times. February 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/technology/ google-looks-to-make-

its-computer-glasses-stylish.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>

Parikka, Jussi. What is media archaeology. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Poster, Mark (1990). The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and

Social Context. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Ritzer, George, Paul Dean, and Nathan Jurgenson. "The coming of age of

the prosumer." American Behavioral Scientist 56.4 (2012): 379-398.

Simmel, G. (1997). The metropolis and mental life. In D. Frisby & M.

Featherstone (eds.) Simmel on culture: Selected writings. (pp. 174-

186) Thousand Oaks (Cal.): Sage.

Stallman, Richard. ‘The GNU Operating System and the Free Software

Movement’. in Chris Di Bone, Sam Ockman and Mark Stone, eds. Open

Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Sebastopol: O'Reilly, 1999. pp.

53-70.

95

https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/bin/edit/MoM/DiBone?topicparent=MoM.SoftwareAnalysis

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/technology/google-looks-to-make-its-computer-glasses-stylish.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/technology/google-looks-to-make-its-computer-glasses-stylish.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0




Slavin, Kevin. “How Algorithms Shape Our World.” TEDTalks, 2011

Terranova, Tiziana. "Free labor: Producing culture for the digital

economy."Social text 18.2 (2000): 33-58.

Van Dijck, José. "Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated

content." Media, culture, and society 31.1 (2009). Online.

<quigleyadam.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/users-like-you-dijck.pdf>

Veenstra, M. (2013). Informatietechnologie in de openbare ruimte.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Waal, Bastiaan Gerard Martijn. De stad als interface: Digitale media en stedelijke

openbaarheid. Diss. University Library Groningen, 2012.

Wheeler, David A. "Why open source software/free software (OSS/FS,

FLOSS, or FOSS)? Look at the numbers." (2005): 514-520.

Media listFigure 1: How Google Glass works (Google, 2014)

Google Glass. “How Google Glass works”.

www.google.com/glass/

Figure 2: Word Lens view through Google Glass (Shewan, 2014)

Shewan,Dan. “Five creative ways to Use Google Glass”. May 22, 2014.

Blogpost on Toovia

www.toovia.com/posts/2014/may/22/0.13503.375667994345209866

Figure 3: Camera detection (Veenhof, 2014)

Veenhof, Sander. “Camera detection”. http://sndrv.com/

Figure 4: Example face recognition (Kuyper, 2014)

96

http://www.toovia.com/posts/2014/may/22/0.13503.375667994345209866

http://www.google.com/glass/




Figure 5: Screenshot Interactive augmented reality (FutureScope, 2014)

Figure 6: Layer images with Google Glass (Layar promo video, 2014)

97

Google Glass: The role of augmented reality technology as a gatekeeper

Documents

Transcript of Google Glass: The role of augmented reality technology as a gatekeeper