Archive for February, 2013

Spatial cognition: it’s fun

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

These papers on spatial cognition introduced another complex, inter/multi-disciplinary field that is relevant and interesting for GIScientists, but not necessarily a sub-field of GIS or geography and requires considerable knowledge outside of the discipline. The papers point out some predictable things that humans do to better understand spatial information and our environments – like mentally shifting landmasses to align with canonical boundaries. I wonder if we (with our spatial training) are more or less likely to make these mistakes, and if we have different patterns in our spatial cognition. For example, do we “invert” Tobler’s law without realizing it (assuming that things which are similar must be closer together). I also wonder how these ideas of spatial cognition play a role in our development of spatial ontologies, such as how different cultures might have (general) differences in how they collect, store, and use spatial knowledge, or even what we consider spatial knowledge to be. And similarly, how do augmented reality and spatial cognition interplay – for example, as virtual and augmented reality become increasingly prevalent, will we increase our ability to derive spatial knowledge in these environments? Will “digital natives” have an edge for learning in these environments?

Looking forward to the presentation and discussion tomorrow!


Volunteered Geographic Information: the nature and motivation of produsers

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Coleman et al. nicely characterizes the types of people who volunteer geographic information and the nature of their contributions in an easy to read and understand article. Especially important to keep in mind was the difference between “information produsage” and “informational production”. The mix of expertise, reasoning and type of contribution the authors provided are necessary considerations that a firm or individual should further investigate before using the data. The questions going forward were particularly interesting because it suggested to question how/if using the volunteered GI data would be useful, and what potential risks would arise. It reminds the audience to take a step back from the abundance of freely available geospatial data around us to assess what use it has to our research and whether it is the best dataset suitable to answer the research questions.

Beyond considering the data itself, a GI scientist is faced with dealing with the sheer massiveness of the data, how to capture, store, process, and display the data (yikes …that’s a lot of things to consider). But who is ultimately responsible for this data to ensure its accuracy (whatever accuracy means within the context of the data). Is it a data analyst at wiki or Google or should a GI scientist determine accuracy? I think whoever holds the power to “legitimize” the data will determine its acceptability in theory creation and policy-making. However, since we often associate legitimate information with academia or knowledge experts does this just reinforce a top down discourse of power that volunteer geographic information is supposed to challenge?


Spatial cognition for better GIS?

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

I read the article of Richardson et al. and I find it very interesting how different experiences (maps, navigation, virtual environments) enable different representations and different ways of learning space. I see that the study of spatial cognition can be a way to design more accessible GIS to the users. It seems more obvious after reading that article that spatial cognition is necessary in the domain of navigation, but it is also important in other domain like planning and land management for example. Understanding how people orient themselves and acquire knowledge related to their position and objects in space is a step towards adapting the technology to suit different representation of space. I found the article very interesting but there is a lot more about spatial cognition than the variables that they studied. E.g.: visual variables (color, size,..) of the features on the map or in the environment; other senses (touch, smell,) that might affect memory, social characteristics might affect the learning experience, relations between elements that might be processed in different ways.


Will You Volunteer?

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Goodchild’s article does a great job of giving an overview of the history, components, and some of the uses of Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI). Though he does a great job of highlighting the many benefits to this huge source of data, he also acknowledges some of the issues that arise with dependency on this type of data.

The are several issues in particular that I believe affect the future of the field. First of all, standardization of data is an issue when dealing with volunteered information. Contributors may not know the correct way to upload and cite data, which in turn could affect the results. This issue has been addressed somewhat by the use of volunteers who monitor the data, as well as agencies that have outlined the way to standardize certain types of data. Another issue is the ability of certain user to undermine the collective effort. This issue in particular is ever more relevant as larger and larger databases are compiled. Although it is generally accepted that contributors are working together for the collective good, there is a possibility that some people, with ulterior motives, could undermine the collective effort.One example of this is when anonymous users tamper with Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia allows any user to edit the content of its pages. And while there are some volunteers who monitor pages for legitimacy, there is a possibility of people propagating false information.

Overall, VGI has the ability to be a very useful field for current and future collective projects. However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed before it can be relied upon for important policy decisions.

-Victor Manuel

Sensitive sensors?

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Michael F. Goodchild argues that the most important value of volunteered geography might be provided by citizens sensors compiling information (unnoticed by other media) about their local environment and daily activities.

The authors briefly signalize issues related to volunteered geography (digital divide, authority and assertion, mention the issue of privacy, but do not engage in that topic further). Nonetheless, I found the point of view of the author a little optimistic and would have liked to hear more about the problems associated with the data, for example. The question of what drives citizens to be accurate or inaccurate is important, but there is also the notion of reliability. How reliable is data produced by a relatively homogeneous group of people sharing similar interests?

Life experiences are relative to the context in which they take place. To what extent are generalizations possible from these data? Accuracy might not be the best word to capture the complexity of the phenomena of volunteered geography which is based on a wide range of different realities.

Furthermore, to what extent can the technologies really allow the expression of what we can sense in our environment? For example, does tagging “like” or “dislike” reduce the complexity and limit the expression of the way we feel to a dualist point of view?

It is clear that volunteered information is a cheap way for corporate and governmental agencies to acquire information but is there a cost behind all this that we are missing. I’m thinking for example the compromise of confidentiality and individual privacy. The article doesn’t really engage with the issues of individual privacy as announced in the abstract. In another article Nadine Shuurman interviewed Goodchild and asked him if: “a world of citizen sensors change the way we experience privacy?”(p.575). Part of his answer was that: “if you volunteer the information yourself, how can you be said to be violating privacy if it’s information about you?” (p.576). The problems arise of course when it’s information about others. But is the volunteered geography ‘system’ set up so that the citizens sensors really know how the data that they produce will be used?

Schuurman, N. (2009). The new Brave New World: Geography, GIS, and the emergence of ubiquitous mapping and data. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27(4), 571-572.


Living in a Virtual World

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

As I was reading through Richardson’s article, I kept thinking to myself time and time again- why aren’t Virtual Environments and effective tool for learning the layouts of real environments? It stands to reason that if the real environment is reproduced at a digital level, a test subject should be able to gain a similar amount of knowledge about the environment as a person who walked through said environment in real life.

Therefore, as the authors outlined some of the limitations of a VE, I started to brainstorm how an accurate and effective VE could be constructed and displayed. One of the main issues withe using VE as a learning tool was the alignment effect- user of the VE could become disoriented, especially when rising sets of staircases. One potential solution to this conundrum could be the creation of a sort of “immersive” virtual environment, which visually surrounds the user. This could be achieved on a relatively portable scale through the use of some sort of “full experience” headset, which would make it appear as if the user is immersed in the real environment. Overall, the paper raises very though provoking questions about the limitations of Virtual Environments; especially how they are still not a viable substitute to experiencing said environment in real life.

-Victor Manuel

Map memories

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

In their 1999 study, Richardson et al. compared how subjects learn to navigate their environments from maps, navigation, and virtual copies of the environments. They found that people tend to learn more effectively from maps than from virtual environments. The paper itself is thorough and describes in detail the authors’ procedure and findings. I happen to think the final discoveries, however, are not terribly surprising.

I have always thought that some people (such as myself) are naturally “map people” while others are more “trial and error” or experiential learners. While map readers are, according to Richardson et al., heavily dependent on consistent orientation, they are more aware of the greater surroundings and the bigger picture. Being aware of causality, such as “if I turn left, then I will see the elevator at the end of the hall,” enables one to form mental maps and think ahead in the navigation process. Experiential learners, on the other hand, will most likely navigate by landmark in a step-by-step process that is more shortsighted. Additionally, in terms of longer-term memory, I would not be surprised if map readers could, in a sense, recite a navigation process from memory more easily than could an experiential learner. These are just my conjectures, but if Richardson et al. had accurate conclusions, then it is fairly clear that map readers are already at an advantage.

– JMonterey

Three Spaces of Spatial Cognition

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Tversky and Morrison describe how we keep track of 3 different spaces – navigation, the space immediately around the body and the space of body. Linking these three spaces together, they are used concurrently as we interact with the world around us. The authors describe how each space is conceptualized differently in our minds from reference frames, categorically to salient features.

GISystem can easily map based on a hierarchy that is useful for the space of navigation, but less common (in my own exposure at least) is to use a GISystem to map a users immediate surroundings around the body and the space of bodies. Perhaps this is an opportunity to use the 3D modeler or a new geovisualization technique to represent the 3 axes of the body in which we associate objects to it. We usually deal with spatial phenomenon on such a large scale (relative to the body), that I’m curious if the same techniques of data model or data structures currently existing can be applied on a micro scale. Also, given the qualitative nature of spatial cognition data that doesn’t lend itself to columns and rows being able to integrate these unique datasets will a challenge in itself.

In Goodchild’s article, Geographical information science: fifteen years later he notes that GIScience “take two essentially distinct forms: research about GIS that would lead eventually to improvements in the technology, and research with GIS that would exploit the technology in the advancement of science” (2006, pp. 200). Then, spatial cognition may be applicable to both forms. Through developing new ways to display data on multiple scales and dimensions as well as representing spatial data that may not be easily categorized will no doubt contribute to the technology’s improvement. Furthermore, the disciple of cognitive science can exploit the technology of GISystems to further advance their theories and apply new visualization techniques previously unavailable.


Goodchild, Michael F. “Geographical information science: fifteen years later.” Classics from IJGIS: twenty years of the International Journal of Geographical Information Science and Systems 2 (2006): 107-133.

On Academia, Industry and Assumed Value Neutrality

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Reading Coleman et als’ paper, a useful piece examining VGI participants and their motivation, brought forth, for me, one of my bigger pet peeves: the idea of value-neutrality (and proficiency) within academia. Let me explain. In the list of motivations to contribute, the authors identify three negative motivations: mischief, agenda, and malice and/or criminal intent. While the article by no means classifies these motivations as specific to VGI, their placement sets them symbolically apart from that knowledege produced by experts. By positing these negative uses as illustrative of VGI as non-neutral, I read an assertion of value neutrality into the domain of experts.
I recognize that the rigourous demands of a publishing process cannot be ignored, and unquestionably account for a higher quality of data production within academic and professional realms. This does not mean that they are perfect, nor does it mean they are without agenda. Agenda is not always explicit, and I argue not always even conscious. However, the lay reader of an academic paper believes it to be value-neutral. All the while, VGI is seen as never trustworthy. Let us bring this to the domain of GIS.
We trust the professionals at Google maps and the peer-reviewed GIS paper, but not at OpenStreetMaps. Both producers and produsers have to make decisions when they input data. We know that in spatial representations, it is easy to lie and it is easy to produce hierarchies. In fact, it is difficult not to. The difference between VGI and professional GIS is that people expect the former to do so and the latter to abstain. However, Google has to make money, and the academic has to be published, and they can mold their data to this end, as can their editors and publishers. I guess what I’m asking in the end, is where can we make a useful critique of VGI that takes into account the unreliability of all data? How to we introduce accountablity into academia, industry or VGI?

On the question of mischief, well, that one happens too. See here


Virtual Environment in need of more development for spatial learning

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

In Michael Goodchild’s article “Citizens as Sensors: The World of Volunteered Geography” (2005), he summarizes the pros and cons of VGI, and some of the barriers that stand in the way of true citizen science. The debate over VGI is, in essence, a debate of privileged technically-proficient scientists versus the masses of under-educated (for the purposes of most applications of VGI) earth citizens. While those skilled individuals have the technical abilities to carry out analysis, there is a huge amount of untapped data that is available from citizens themselves. Using this data, however, might lead to a privacy dispute, underrepresentation in some people due to the digital divide, and a lack of accuracy in the data available.


While the Web 2.0 has much data to offer, much of it is in new data formats that might not be useable right now in commercial GIS software. It is the revolution that makes VGI possible. Digital divide aside, most people can provide useful information if provided with a clear, considerate, interface that makes them want to volunteer their information. Using the citizens as scientists themselves seems like a viable option, since 7 billion walking around a planet are likely to observe things faster and more accurately than a select group of scientists. However, the way this data is reported, processed, and analyzed is what the dispute is really about. Citizens must be involved in all steps of the process, and some way of ensuring equal representation of all citizens must be established. As Goodchild stresses, VGI has the potential to be a cheap and effective source of information if implemented properly.


Pointy McPolygon


Spatial Learning: What works now and what might work later

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Interestingly, in Richardson et al.’s (1999) study on spatial cognition and learning, distinctions were made between how people perceive space on a map, while walking the route themselves, and while walking the route on a virtual tour. Differences were noted between map and navigation methods, as well as between real and virtual environments. No differences were perceived between map and navigation users, leading the authors to believe that maps are a quick and easy way to give orientation of space. However, between real and virtual navigation environments, participants had much poorer spatial learning in the virtual environment. In particular, VE participants had trouble with spatial learning between floors, as opposed to on a flat plane.


While VE did not have the best results in this study, that is not to say that they should be abandoned entirely. They bring numerous benefits over real navigation, especially for handicapped people or those who do not have the financial capacity or time to visit some locations. The amount of spatial learning in a VE is surely related to the quality of the VE itself. With better geovisualiation and improved processing ability, the performance of the VE may be improved to the point where it becomes a viable option over a real environment. Currently, VEs are only effective at translation but not rotational updating, however this could change with improved technology.


Pointy McPolygon


Technology: Changing Spatial Cognition

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Tversky et al.’s article, “Three Spaces of Spatial Cognition” places human cognition of space in an easy to understand framework of 3 understandings; the space of navigation, the space around the body and the space of the body. In GIScience, it is important to understand how human perceive the world we live in, as it determines how we create the GISystems and how they are used to display and modify geographical data.

The article seems to represent the idea of spatial cognition well from the point of view of psychology, but lacks in how new adaptive systems and digital mediums are modifying the ideas within spatial cognition and how humans see the world. For example in my research, the use of an iPad with 3D maps and real time tracking. The use of this technology has caused me to now perceive the world in a vertical and dynamic manner. To elaborate, before I would look at the world and place objects or places in relation to myself (like in the article), but now I place them in relation to other objects and view them as being at dynamic locations, moving as I move. I like to think of it in the context of a video game where game play maps were once set in a player centric way. However, because technology has changed, the game maps have evolved into 3 dimensional dynamic maps with distances and locations that change with the movement of the player, the other characters, and changes in the game play environment itself (no longer N-S-E-W maps).

I feel that the article would have benefited from more computer scientist and geographer input into how GI programs and geographical education can help, hinder or change the perception and way we see our space and place. Furthermore, the addition of AI research ideas into how robots navigate (maps, gps, image navigation, range finders, etc.) would have provided a better understanding of spatial cognition in the digital world of today and not just a psychology interpretation.


VGI and the POWER LAW!!

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Coleman, Georgiadou, and Labonte (2009) state that VGI causes a “more influential role [to be] assumed by the community” (p. 2). That’s great! But — is this influence level across the playing field of the “produsers” they talk about? Ross Mayfield’s Power Law of Participation says no.




As a produser, we fall somewhere along this graph which indicates our respective influence in the application, according to Mayfield. This Law affirms one of the fundamental characteristics of informational ‘produsage’ outlined in the article: the environment allows for fluid movement of individuals between different roles in the community. You can move along the Power Law graph whenever you want.With this in mind, we must consider who is located in each part for different participatory applications, and whether the produsers comprising the high engagement-collaborative intelligence are a good representation for the application’s purpose. After CGIS, power comes hand-in-hand with thoughts of who is being left behind; who is not being represented by the high engagement community.

The article provides a succinct overview of VGI, some of its applications, categories of users and their motivations, and potential data issues. Where does VGI fall short? In a world where collaboration and public participation see increasing popularity, will we be able to solely rely on VGI in the future? True, popularity != credibility — we still need to look at the holes in the maps.



What to Use VGI For?

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

The advent of VGI has brought on a whole set of new issues including but not limited to, the reliability, motivations and frequency of users.  For example, Goodchild outlines that VGI can be known as asserted information, as there is no source of checks and balances or peer-review to ensure that the data is “correct.”  While someone uploading data about a specific phenomenon in their locale may think they are an expert themselves, there is still the potential for errors.  There is also the issue of people purposely sabotaging projects, similar to the way in which people create viruses to spread via the internet.

Nonetheless, VGI has tremendous value, as Goodchild pointed out at the end of the paper.  Personally, I believe that VGI must be evaluated on a case by case basis.  It all depends on what the VGI is being used for and how accurate it needs to be.  With this must come a level of reservation for the person actually using the data.  Because many of us are familiar with Wikipedia, I will use that as an example.  I use Wikipedia when I am looking for general information on a topic that will not necessarily have determential effects if it is incorrect, for example the history of a rock band I like.  I will not, however, use Wikipedia as a source of in depth analysis on an academic subject that I will be writing a paper on, such as Location Based Services.  It is in this manner that I think VGI needs to be evaluated.  If the information being gathered needs to be of utmost accuracy, take the necessary steps to ensure that contributors have the necessary credentials.  If not, let VGI run wild and see what kind of results you get!



Spatial Cognition and Personal Preference

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

The study done by Richardson et al. gives us a very interesting look into the various ways individuals can conceive and understand a certain space.  However, problems tend to arise when trying to develop a solid understanding of the exact differences between direct learning, map learning and Virtual Environment learning.  It was mentioned that there are direct contradictions between this study and past studies, as well as among those past studies.

While it may not explain all the differences, I believe that personal preference plays a huge role in the effectiveness of using a VE to understand a space versus a map or directly walking through the area.  Thus, our ability to spatially comprehend a space, whether it is a series of halls or an entire city block depends heavily on what sort of sources of information we prefer over others.  While reading the paper, I thought of a similarity between this study and how we learn in a classroom.  It is obvious that all people do not like to learn concepts in the same way.  That is, some people prefer to learn by doing, while others prefer to have something explained to them in a very concise and clear manner.  I believe that this sort of preferential learning can be extended to these concepts of spatial cognition.  As VE becomes more advanced and ubiquitous, I think that some people will still find it difficult to use it as a means of learning about a place and would rather look at a bird’s-eye-view map to understand the space.  Others will tend to reject the “antiquated” notion of maps and prefer to virtually explore somewhere before they actually go there.   Regardless, I am very excited to see how far the use of VE goes in terms of understanding an area before we go there.  Will we get to the point where we could essentially “place” ourselves on any point on the Earth and explore it as if we are there?   Instead of a map of campus, will students be able to download a VE of the building they will spend the most time in and have a walkthrough to their classrooms and respective libraries?  All this could get very interesting within the next couple decades.




A model for your mental map

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Tversky et al’s explanation of mental spaces as “built around frameworks consisting of elements and the relations among them,” (516) reminds me of an entity relationship model. The mental framework we have could consist of:

– Entities in line with Lynch’s city elements, and touched on in the Space of Navigation

  • Paths
  • Edges
  • Districts
  • Nodes
  • Landmarks

– Relationships to associate meaning between entities

  • Paths leading to landmarks
  • Edges surrounding districts

– Attributes distinguishing the characteristics of an entity

  • Significance of a landmark
  • Width of a path (maybe depicting how frequently it is used for travel opposed to actual width)

I would have liked this article to have a greater theoretical grounding within GIS. I struggle to see what cognitive maps can be used for in a GIS framework, but with this simplified schema in mind, can we translate these cognitive maps into usable data in a GIS? Maybe, but I think we would have to be very meticulous to grasp the nuances in spatial perception and cognition, and therefore the relationships between entities.

Cognitive mapping methodology stresses the importance of debriefing after the maps are made. Discussions must be held in order to begin to establish reasoning regarding why what things are placed in certain locations, why things are deemed to have greater importance, etc. I don’t think that a simply digitized cognitive map will serve much purpose (as a pedagogical tool or otherwise) without knowing the meaning behind it. Each user will have different experiences leading them to perceive different things—things that I don’t think we can make much sense of without dealing with the nitty-gritty relationships of entities.


Maps vs Reality vs Virtual Reality

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

To be very honest, I found the paper by Richardson et. al to be one of the more interesting papers that I have read. The comparisons that they make are intriguing and the results are still more surprising.

I found the experiment designed by the researchers to be very robust. Hence, the results of the experiment can be accepted to be quite accurate. The question that the results raised in my mind was about the effects that augmented reality systems have on our spatial cognition abilities. Considering GPS navigator to be an augmented reality system, does it mean that we are becoming less adept at navigating naturally because we rely on the GPS navigator? Has anyone conducted research to understand the effect GPS navigation systems have on an individual’s spatial cognition abilities? How accurately and efficiently can regular GPS navigator users find out the route between two places compared to non-navigator users?

-Dipto Sarkar


Humans as Sensors

Monday, February 25th, 2013

The paper by Goodchild provides an overview of the various enabling factors that have led to the success of VGIS. I found the concept of “Humans as sensors” to be particularly interesting. I feel that this is has been the primary driving force behind VGIS services like Wikimapia, Openstreet Maps and even Google Maps. When maps started becoming digital, one of the primary challenges was to gather enough data to represent an area at different scales. This problem was not particularly profound in case of paper maps which were produced at certain discrete scales only. To gather enough data for digital maps, mass public participation became inevitable. Collecting so much data at different granularity levels was made possible only because people with varying degree of knowledge about an area started to contribute to services like OpenStreet Maps; overtime generating enough information to provide a fairly complete “patchwork”. Despite all the public effort, Google Maps for India have been criticized to be incomplete, incorrect and even non-existent in certain cases. As a response, Google has organised an event called Mapathon 2013 (from 12th of February 2013 to the 25th of March 2013) in India. The event aims to incentivise the process of adding geographic information to Google Maps by giving out attractive prices to the top editors.

When it comes to the use of VGIS in case of emergency or disaster situations, where traditional data collection can become too slow to be useful, Ushahidi deserves special mention. “Ushahidi (Swahili for “testimony” or “witness”) created a website ( in the aftermath of Kenya’s disputed 2007 presidential election that collected eyewitness reports of violence sent in by email and text-message and placed them on a Google Maps map” (Wikipedia). A visit to the Wikipedia entry for Ushahidi reveals several crisis situations where similar solutions based on the Ushahidi platform proved to be helpful. I also encourage a visit to the Ushahidi website ( to understand the wide range of technological support that it provides to build crisis/disaster mapping portals.

– Dipto Sarkar

The future of critical GIS

Friday, February 22nd, 2013

It seems to a recurring theme in many GIScience papers that the topic in question lacks a distinct identity or field of study, and critical GIS is no exception. Who is interested in critical GIS? Well, most people should be… however as O’Sullivan points out in his paper on critical geography and GIS, not many people have a full understanding of this topic. GIS analysts lack geographic social theory, and human geographers may lack technical skills to analyze things.


In geography, we are all taught of the power of maps, although I doubt many of us (atleast in undergrad) fully grasp what this means. Maps lie. There is a reason there is a user in GIS, and that part of that reason involves having the flexible to display things as you wish. This is a double edged sword; while the flexibility is good for map making, it also allows for people to purposefully mislead and lie to the people the map is designed for. Not only is the user involved in making display decisions, but also in the development of the software, where a feminist geographer might argue has been an entirely one-sided endeavor.


After reading about critical geography, I am somewhat more confused and skeptical about everything than when I started. I’m not entirely sure this is a good thing, because too much skepticism leads to indecision. While it’s good to be aware of matters affecting the quality of what we take for granted, the role of a ‘critical geographer’ remains foggy to me. The review of this topic shows that we are aware of all of these issues, but without some sort of centralized critical geographer regime ruling over all software and data it seems like things will remain heading in the same direction.


Pointy McPolygon


Advances in Augmented Reality – Where does it end?

Friday, February 22nd, 2013

Augmented reality supplements reality with computer technology. This is not to be confused with augmented virtuality or a virtual environment, where the ‘reality’ aspect is no longer the main focus of the interface. In their article on the recent advances in augmented reality, Azuma et al. point out that one of the issues with the current interface is that it lacks the resolution, extent, brightness and contrast to blend the real with the virtual. If the technology improves, this problem in the display may go away, but am I the only one who is slightly uncomfortable with this notion? I’ll elaborate…


I am pro augmented reality because it can add services and information to supplement what we see and what we know. Having improved environmental sensing and human computer interaction can vastly improve this. However, I feel uncomfortable looking at an image where I can no longer tell what is real and what isn’t . I am perfectly fine with an imperfect display. This speaks to the aspect of social acceptance in the Azuma et al. paper. While the other aspects of the technology may need to improve in order to fine-tune augmented reality, I think that display technologies have come far enough. And I feel like a grandfather for saying it…


Pointy McPolygon