Hello everyone, my name is Alexi Orchard and today I am excited to present our paper,
Augmented Reality Smart Glasses in Focus: a User Group Report. This project is a collaboration
between myself, Dr Marcel O'Gorman, Chelsea La Vecchia, and Dr Jason Lajoie.
This project took place through the Critical Media Lab at the University of Waterloo.
So there's a good chance that many of you are familiar with augmented reality smart glasses.
I expect that by the time this video is released there will be even more products and examples
of AR glasses to discuss. The products shown here are primarily differentiated by their target user,
either industry or consumer, and by their capacity to record images or video and their application
of the AR technology. Focals by North is the brand of AR glasses that we used in this study.
Our group received their first generation model of Focals; however, in June 2020 it was announced
that North was being acquired by Google and the Focals were discontinued. The main components of
Focals 1 are the glasses, which had a holographic image projected into the lens of the right eye.
Focals also came with a small joystick ring called a 'loop' that someone would use to control the
interface, and finally they came with a protective carrying case that charged the glasses and the
loop. It is important to note that these glasses do not have a camera or recording function,
which mitigates some of the privacy concern that we observed with earlier products such
as Google Glass. Our user group for this study was comprised of six participants from the University
of Waterloo who wore the glasses for three weeks. The participants then submitted daily journal
entries on a shared blogging site. Our focus group was initially set to take place in person,
but then pivoted to being an online meeting due to Covid-19. Four of the main themes that were
brought up consistently in our results included time, design, functionality, and others reactions.
I'm going to give a quick overview of each and then turn to some discussion. On this case study,
participants were initially asked to wear the glasses for a minimum of three hours per day
throughout the study but they often describe their time wearing the glasses as being "only
x number of minutes because" and never wore the glasses for more than one hour on any occasion.
In this study, design refers to the product's hardware. Participants describe the glasses
as "clunky" "awkward" and "objectively unflattering." As well, for some users
the image placement within the lenses was not well aligned with their natural line of sight.
For functionality, participants evaluated how well the product operated for them and
any obstacles they encountered in attempting to use the Focals. Some found that the applications
were difficult to install but everyone enjoyed the built-in trivia game. A general
comment was that Focals were consistently distracting while attending to a task,
walking through crowded areas, or interacting with other individuals. From peers family members and
spouses, the participants often received negative or humorous responses to wearing the Focals.
Peers said that it was obvious when they were engaging with the glasses seeming "dismissive"
or "disingenuous" and no longer attentive to the people or activities around them.
In previous work researchers have identified some of the key criteria that affect the acceptance of
wearable tech, such as wearability, ease of use, appearance or attractiveness, functionality,
enjoyment, and price. Our study briefly touched on some of these factors and how they helped or
hindered participants in their daily activities. We also observed that while industry might improve
productivity from ARSGs by applying them in specific tasks and contexts,
this study demonstrates that the consumer experience, which is characterized by
multitasking, results in reducing productivity. There are a few notable limitations to this study;
for example, Covid-19 was an obstacle for the participants experience as well as the
planned study design. As well our sample size and composition was not wholly representative of ARSG
target audiences. And finally the cost of the Focals for each participant was covered
so they had no opportunity to factor price against their experience of the glasses. Finally here are
a few brief points on opportunities for future research. We think that our results and the
themes discussed would be relevant to the further development of consumer assessment frameworks,
as the existing research is heavily interested in industry assessment. As well, non-user studies
would be interesting to explore technology acceptance and the social impacts of AR.
And finally we suggest that there be greater emphasis on the sustainability of the product
design, as the glasses are custom fitted to each user and have effectively become e-waste. Thank
you to our research team and funding support, as well as CHI22 and viewers for listening.