Introduction
The Jetsons, Star Trek, Buck Rogers in the
25th 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
Strickland,
J. (2012, July 29). How Google Glass Works. Retrieved June 2, 2015, from
Wearable,
competitive advantage. (2014). Retrieved June 4, 2015, from
http://vandrico.com/wearables/device/google-glass