Google Glass in Libraries

Introduction

     The Jetsons, Star Trek, Buck Rogers in the 25^th Century, and others are just a sampling of television shows from the past that left viewers, including myself, thinking that it was next to impossible that any of the futuristic technologies the characters in these programs engaged with would ever come to fruition in our lifetimes. Fast forward a few years, and we find ourselves living with and even expecting these types of inventions and technologies to be commonplace. One such technology that has recently been introduced is Google Glass, or as it’s fans and owners might refer to it, simply Glass.

     Google Glass is basically a device that looks like a pair of glasses, but there are no lenses-only a lightweight titanium frame (Stein and Turrentine, 2013), that holds a touchpad and a “prism-like screen”  along with a speaker, a camera lens, and the battery source (Strickland, 2012). Judging from the images I’ve seen, these “glasses” might actually be considered fashionable by some standards. When first made available, the color choices were shale, tangerine, charcoal, cotton and sky (Kalinauckas, 2015, p. 17). Google Glass is really no different from a smartphone in that the user can take pictures, record videos, search the web, and check email; the difference lies in the ability to perform all these functions hands-free and by voice commands that begin with the phrase, “OK, Glass” (Strickland, 2012).

Literature Review

     Interestingly, the idea of a wearable computer is not new. Booth and Brecher (2014) remind us of two precursors of Google Glass:  a device to help one with their gambling pursuits that was worn on the foot and the calculator watches of the seventies (p. 235). Additionally, Hyman (2013) introduces the reader to Steve Mann, who actually made AR (Augmented Reality) glasses called “EyeTap Digital Eye Glass”,  back in 1978 (p. 19). But these facts are probably not common knowledge, so it would be safe to say that the notion of being able to compute with a device worn on one’s head would be an “eyebrow raiser.” Given the assumed novelty and trendiness of such a device, one might come to the conclusion that Google Glass has been a huge success and that consequently everyone who is anyone should own a pair. The available literature paints quite a different picture, though, and shows the polarizing nature of many emerging technologies. Ross (2015) calls the invention “embarrassing” (p.4). Bishop (2015) cites issues related to privacy, distracted behaviors, and cost. Booth and Brecher (2014) relate problems related to “technoelitism”, poor etiquette, and in the case of institutional use of this particular technology, the appearance of support of the product (p. 234). On the other hand, Google Glass has been labeled a “great advantage” (Hannagan, 2014) and “promising” (Stein and Turrentine, 2013), while Bishop (2015) recognizes “potential” and “functionality” as possible positives. A recurring theme in the literature is that it may be too soon to judge the usefulness and value of Google Glass. Booth and Brecher (2014) use the term “prominent developing model” As Bishop (2015) writes, “Wearables and Google Glass are continuing to evolve”. Stein and Turrentine (2013) call Google Glass an “experiment”, a “social-interaction project”, and “a living debate on wearable tech”. They further surmise that “some of its uses may not have been invented yet”. A visit to the product’s website, www.google.com/glass/start seems to confirm these sentiments with the posted message you’re met with upon accessing the homepage: “Thanks for exploring with us. The journey doesn’t end here”. It sounds like Google definitely has plans for the future of Glass.

 Use In Libraries

     According to the website Vandrico.com (2014), “The potential of using this computing device for workplace scenarios is almost infinite”. Since libraries are workplaces, time spent investigating how various institutions have made use of the technology would seem worthwhile. To set the stage a bit, Google launched a “Glass Explorer” contest on Twitter and Google+ that potential users could enter by tweeting  or messaging“#IfIHadGlass” for a chance to win one of the devices (Bishop, 2015). One library that took the challenge was the Arapahoe Library, a public library in Denver, Colorado. They made a video and tweeted, “You know what libraries are known for? Sweet glasses”. Besides the goal of wanting to make new technologies available to their patrons, the director of digital services, Oli Sanidas, admitted that “we are really trying to reinvent our image” (p.1).  The latter statement is one that seems to be echoing throughout the library world, and emerging technologies do seem to fit the bill for the kind of updating the typical library needs.

     Claremont Colleges Library located in California, actually bought Google Glass with the express purpose of …”circulating it widely among students, faculty, and staff in an effort to provide access to an expensive and relatively rare technology” while investigating the “pedagogical, academic, and research applications” of the technology (Booth and Brecher, 2014, p. 235). The aforementioned authors, who were staff members at the library at the time of their writing, are of the opinion that “Glass seems to be gaining the most traction in libraries” (p. 235), which might explain their willingness to engage in such an endeavor.

     Wayne State University Libraries in Detroit, Michigan, began their adventure with Google Glass in 2014. They created an app for use by Glass called “Wayne State Campus Explorer” that was basically an enhanced map that would aid wearers of the device to not only find their way around, but learn interesting facts about what they were viewing. This library was also looking at using this app for way finding within the library itself, and as a way to send messages to users. Another potential use was in regards to reserving study rooms. (Free, 2014, p. 594).

     Another library that has made use of Google Glass is the Marcellus Free Library in New York. In her piece, Hannagan (2014) relates the experience of Rene’ Battelle, the assistant director of the library. Battelle states that, “Libraries are usually among the last places to find new technology”, but she also believes that all librarians should acquaint themselves with Glass and its use. Battelle has created a couple of videos on the library’s YouTube channel, one of which can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPzEsUqbOX0

     North Carolina State University Libraries is yet another institution that was able to procure one of the devices and began using it in conjunction with what they call their “Technology Lending Service”. They say that, “Adding the Google Glass helps to ensure that our researchers have access to a key tool that is promising to dramatically change how humans interact with computing resources” (Library News, 2014, p. 27).

Potential

     The potential is present for Google Glass and its surely to be forthcoming cousins to change the way librarians conduct business as usual. With the current focus on quick information and mobile technology, the future seems ripe for further development of these augmented reality devices. In my opinion, one of the most advantageous of the prospective uses related to the library would be in the area of providing reference services. As Stein and Turrentine (2013) point out, “Google Glass is Google on your face”. There is much talk about librarians getting out from behind the reference desk. Glass would enable them to do just that. Booth and Brecher (2014) see the main potentials to be in “pedagogy and research, community lending, and application development” (p. 236). In Asgarian’s (2014) article, the aforementioned director, Sanidas, simply said, “…it attracts different kinds of people to the library” (p.1), not necessarily an ingenious use, but it would achieve a goal of outreach.

Challenges/Issues

    For all the hype and publicity Google Glass may have received, it is not without some serious barriers to its continued success. One of the most basic challenges associated with Google Glass is the price tag, which is around $1,500. There are also problems with the battery life as reported by Stein and Turrentine (2013) and Kalinauckas (2015).

     Perhaps the foremost concern is that of privacy. As Hyman (2013) says, “This is a big leap in data collection.” He quotes Matthew Green of Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute, who states, “AR glasses will be collecting everything you see, everything you say…” (p. 1). Hyman also quotes Bruce Schneier, a security technology officer, who seems to downplay the risks involved by saying, “…AR glasses are no different from any other product or application that stores data in the cloud”. He makes a very valid point when he states, “So, it doesn’t matter what your technology is or what you use to stop misuse of that data. The answer is not to give them the data in the first place” (p. 19). This hearkens back to the whole idea of personal responsibility and educating oneself on the safe and proper uses of technology. Hong (2013) provides another view when he says, “…we all have little experience with wearable computers, expectations of privacy can change…”  To back this statement up, he relates the story of how the Kodak camera brought up similar questions of privacy when it was first introduced. (p. 11).

Conclusion

     I first remember seeing Google Glass on a news program and thinking, “How ridiculous!” and “When is this pervasive technology craze going to end?”  I recently attended the presentations of some of our university’s graduating seniors in the technology field. One of the presenters had researched the use of Google Glass in various fields-firefighting, medical, even oil engineering. I was intrigued by her presentation, and I’m still intrigued by this high-tech device. While I agree with many of the authors that there is great potential, I see the need to wait a bit longer and witness the changes that are bound to be coming with this technology. Hong (2013) states it best when he writes, “All I can say for sure is to buckle your safety belts, because Google Glass is just one of many of these kinds of big changes in computing we will likely see in the future, and it will be a wild, scary, crazy, and exciting ride” (p. 11).

  References

Asgarian, R. (2014). Arapahoe library invests in Google Glass. Library Journal, 139 (1), p.1.

Bishop, C. (2015). Wearable technology & Google Glass: the next big thing? Issues in

     Science and Technology Librarianship, (79), p.1-1. doi: 10.5062/F4Q23X7R

Booth, C. & Brecher, D. (2014). Ok, library. College & Research Libraries News, 75 (5),

     234-239.

Free, D. (2014). Wayne State University Libraries release custom app for Google Glass.

     College & Research Libraries News, 75 (11), 594.

Hannagan, C. (2014, June 10). Inside one central New York library's Google Glass testing. Retrieved  

     June 3, 2015, from blog.syracuse.com/news/print.html?entry=/2014/06/inside_central_new_york _

     librarys_google_glass_testing.html

Hong, J. (2013). Considering privacy issues in the context of Google Glass. Communications of the

     ACM, 56 (11), 10-11.

Hyman, P. (2013). Augmented-reality glasses bring cloud security into sharp focus. Communications

     Of the ACM, 56 (6), 18-20.

Kalinauckas, A. (2015). 7 problems with Google Glass. Engineering & Technology (17509637), 10 (2),

     16-17.

Library News. (2014). NCSU Libraries now lending Google Glass for research projects. Southeastern

     Librarian, 62 (1), 25-28.

Ross, D. (2015). Editor’s letter. Engineering & Technology (17509637), 10 (2), 4.       

Stein, S., & Turrentine, L. (2013, May 1). Hands-on with Google Glass: Limited, fascinating, full 

     of potential. Retrieved June 3, 2015, from http://www.cnet.com/products/google-glass/#! 

Strickland, J. (2012, July 29). How Google Glass Works. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from

     http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/project-glass2.htm

Wearable, competitive advantage. (2014). Retrieved June 4, 2015, from

     http://vandrico.com/wearables/device/google-glass

Is It Worth It?

          I had a gentleman come in to the library last night who is a student at another university across town. Since this school is part of our consortium, he has borrowing privileges at our library. Of course the book he was looking for was not located in our building, but in the curriculum lab located elsewhere on campus. This lab is undergoing a renovation, so I knew firsthand that things were in a state of disarray, but I really wanted to help this guy. The lab was closed for the evening, so I offered to go over first thing this morning and search for the book. I knew it was going to be like searching for a needle in a haystack, but I wanted to give it my best shot. I took down his phone number and told him I would call him with either good news or bad news.
     I made my way over to the lab and was met with the noxious odor of newly laid carpet. (Is it the glue they use that smells so awful?) Anyway, I thought to myself, "This is not worth it-I'm going to be sick if I have to stay here very long searching for this book.!" The books are stacked on tables, the floor, pretty much anywhere there is an available surface, and they are not in call number order. I pored over several stacks, and I would get excited when I saw a call number similar to the one I was looking for, only to hit a dead end. I was close to giving up hope when I stepped across some stacks on the floor to get to a stack I hadn't looked through yet, when there it was-the needle in the haystack! I was so excited! I briskly walked back to the library, called the young man with the good tidings, and hung up the phone a very satisfied librarian.
     I know this is not earth-shattering news or even very enjoyable reading, but it's about what we as librarians do. We go above and beyond to provide the best possible experience for those we serve. In my very humble opinion,these types of transactions go a long way towards solidifying the library's place in society. And the answer to the question, is "Yes, it's worth it."

Light at the End of the Tunnel

     Now that we're in the home stretch of this class, I have to say that I have mixed emotions about it being over. I'm glad that I won't be so stressed and anxious, but I'll miss the interaction that the class has afforded. At the conference I attended recently, we discussed how so much of library work is about building relationships with the people we serve, and this class has helped me see a world of potential for doing that more effectively. I believe that if I were to see any one of my classmates from Maymester 2015, that we would be able to immediately strike up a conversation based on our shared experiences and the fellowship we've enjoyed. Many thanks to everyone for all the encouragement and support. Let's finish strong!