Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google relaunches Glass for businesses

blog.x.company

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 281 posts

Re: Google relaunches Glass for businesses

#241

Post by twothamendment »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #170
aresant wrote: post #9

This is so !@%!@ cool. Check out the A/B test of a technician with / without the software referenced in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gXuZp25f0 Then here's a video that gives a sense of the software's interface: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5HOHNECW20 Very workflow oriented with nice communication and lookup features. This is the kind of small optimization stuff that is going to be revolutionary…

Is there a particular reason the manual and the tools have to be a flight of stairs away from the technician? I'd wager that the comparison would lose some steam if the tech could just turn his head to the right. And as far as the software goes, there's a lot more there on display than just Glass. For instance, there are at least two cameras in this screenshot that are just magically implied to exist - one taking hig…

"Is there a particular reason the manual and the tools have to be a flight of stairs away from the technician? I'd wager that the comparison would lose some steam if the tech could just turn his head to the right."

I've never worked on planes, but quite a bit on cars and semi-trucks. You can get yourself into some tight spots. There may not be room to bring a manual with you, let alone turn your head to look at it. The closest I've had to glasses is bringing a smartphone to look at a manual or photos - but having it right on your had and hands free would be a huge help.

Re: Google relaunches Glass for businesses

#243

Post by twothamendment »

frahs wrote: post #238
kbenson wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if I immediately accepted that a music stand would be sufficient for what might be a 20 lb technical manual, when placed on a platform that jostles and moves (as is visible in the video), that completely ignores the second half of what I noted. I don't think it's overcomplicating an issue to look at a situation that appears to be sub-optimal and search for reasons why what appear to be simple solutions might not…

Instead of a music stand, you could use a modified camera tripod or something -- I don't think that's too complicated. Anyways, point is a lightweight device capable of holding a 20LB binder isn't new technology -- you could probably buy some sort of off-the-shelf thingy for under $100 which would do it. You're right -- you're not overcomplicating things so much as trying to give this video the benefit of the doubt.…

I think the question of where the binder is located is missing the forest for trees. Who wants a binder when you can have the information right in front of your eye? Especially when you've lugged binder #3 up there only to find it refers you to some spec in binder #2.

To be able to check the torque speck on a bolt while getting it started and tightening it up would be so nice.

Yes, the example video about the time going up and down the ladder is stupid - but I think tech like this has a huge future in shops and I'm sure a bunch of other work places.

Re: Google relaunches Glass for businesses

#245

Post by gnaritas »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #209
gnaritas wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desire for privacy is not "false modesty"; given the sentence you just uttered, I'm not convinced you even know what false modesty even means. People have a hard enough time even talking to doctors about embarrassing or sensitive issues, put a camera in the room and they simply won't, privacy is a need for most human beings, it's not false, it's not fake or done out of a desire to appear a particular way, it's a…

Right, and it also prevents positive outcomes. People chronically lie to their doctors about their actual lifestyle behavior and then are surprised that the Dr. didn't catch all the warning signs for some disease. More data = better outcomes.

Cameras won't add more data as they'll simply discourage people from admitting anything or even going to a doctor. I would not allow my doctor to film me, nor would I imagine most sensible and normal people who have an ordinary sense of privacy. Your doctor works for you, not the other way around, you decide what is acceptable behavior, not them.

Re: Google relaunches Glass for businesses

#246

Post by tastyfreeze »

I have always thought that the perfect application for wearable head mounted displays would be mechanical repair. I would love to be able to pull up the maintenance manual for my vehicle and have the glasses overlay part names, fastener sizes, and torque settings for whatever part I was looking at. This is a step in that direction.

Re: Google relaunches Glass for businesses

#247

Post by gfodor »

Helmet wrote: post #181
gfodor wrote: post #39

I've never understood why they insist on having the device be visually asymmetric. Just put a piece of plastic on the other side that is non-functional, and the "cyborg effect" basically goes away. The human brain hates asymmetric faces. Such a stupid oversight, may have been enough to save the consumer effort if they did this from the get-go.

I think having a piece of nonfunctional plastic on the other side would be silly and, by definition, useless. I think they look pretty sleek, especially in an industrial setting - also, asymmetry doesn't always look bad. I'm reminded of BMW motorcycles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9SIS4izLqE and: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2009/march/mar2709-histor...

I feel about 30% confident that a "silly" piece of plastic on one side would have made it possible for Glass to deliver on its original vision of a mainstream consumer device, since people would feel way less awkward using it if they didn't look like they were part of the Borg collective. (And before you say "but cost", most likely a mainstream consumer version of Glass would be priced way below the initial explorer versions.) In that sense, it isn't "silly", and my guess is that arguments like yours are the reason it was never attempted.

Design requires fitting form to function, and that often means you add non-functional, ie "useless", parts to ensure the interface between human and device is ideal. Aesthetic appeal is a huge part of that, one could argue any component put on a device strictly for aesthetic appeal is "useless." Yet, in many cases, this "useless" component is strictly necessary for a successful design. (Ie, one that people actually use.)

For something you wear on your face, Glass screams out that it was under-designed. Humans are hardwired to prefer symmetric human faces, studies have shown this. So why would you design a device you wear on your face to be asymmetric? Seems obvious.

Re: Google relaunches Glass for businesses

#248

Post by awalton »

cdubzzz wrote: post #217
maccard wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I don't know what I would prefer. certainly I would prefer more quality time with my doctor, but at what cost, I don't know. Here at least (uk) yes. Al of the practices I've visited have strict 10 minute appointments and the doctor will cut you off at 10 minutes. If I go in for a flu jab(I'm asthmatic and at high risk), I expect to be in and out in about 2 minutes, and I don't see the doctor; it's normally a…

Interesting. I probably have a skewed view because I currently have very good employer-provided health care (US). I don't think I've ever spent less than 15 minutes with my doctor for an appointment. She also takes calls and texts and I have made same-day appointments (within hours) in the past. However it is perhaps worth noting that the practice charges a $250/year "concierge fee" and from what I've read that's a v…

> I don't think I've ever spent less than 15 minutes with my doctor for an appointment.

It's always going to vary wildly based on what you need to discuss - a shot takes a minute or two of lead up, being diagnosed with a chronic ailment may take 3+ visits with 30 minutes of discussion each time.

Either way, I'm not comfortable with my doctor wearing a wire into the room. It's hard enough to trust that the notes they take in confidence will stay confident without throwing faulty computer security into the mix; yes, I am already weary of electronic medical records for exactly the same reasons.

Re: Google relaunches Glass for businesses

#249

Post by Steko »

payne92 wrote: post #27

It's easy to armchair quarterback this stuff after the fact, but this is where Glass should have started. The price point, social stigma/issues, and use cases all screamed "business applications!". Consumer tech may be where the glamour and scale are, but it's not always the best market entry point.

> this is where Glass should have started. The price point, social stigma/issues, and use cases all screamed "business applications!".

You've put the cart before the horse. The price point is not fixed. You don't make something and then look around for a convenient market. Google glass was also designed backwards, they maximized screen quality and watched it fail in the market due to high price and shit battery life when what they should have done is designed up from a 12+ hour battery life.

Re: Google relaunches Glass for businesses

#250

Post by dmix »

Spooky23 wrote: post #230
ChrisBland wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is aviation work, you always always always check the work you are doing with the manual. One mistake could be someone's life. The entire aviation industry is checklist and procedure driven.

They even have a specialized English dialect called simplified technical English to help eliminate confusion.

Have they done any studies on the benefits of using the simplified language vs the time investment it takes to produce the manuals to spec?

I'd imagine most of the gain comes from companies with a high number of ESL workers - but it sounds like it may be a tool that a bureaucratic, control obsessed, management culture likes but is largely just busy work parading as productivity gains.

It could also make the technical manual writers lazy or use less editing because they lean on the language instead of investing real thought into making their communication effective and easy to understand.

As machine translation of english continues to improve, I'm curious how useful it will be. And the feature of "Reducing ambiguity" (according to Wikipedia) is something that can be solved in many different ways without having to invent a whole new simplified language subset for all communication.

Either way that's an interesting example of how serious they take this stuff.

Post reply on HN