Browsing the Dutch Augmented Reality Landscape

8/6/2019 Browsing the Dutch Augmented Reality Landscape

1/21

1

Browsing the Dutch Augmented Reality Landscape:a critical exploration

1. Introduction

The Internet smeared out over anything or, as how popular and marketingdiscourse would describe it, the next best thing. These are the descriptionsaugmented reality is facing. Augmented reality is an information technologythat places digital information onto psychical and public spaces. Various formsof augmented reality, starting with early head-mounted displays, have beenaround for more than thirty years and derived from the virtual realitymovement in the late eighties and early nineties.

Today augmented reality is part of a broader migration of computing

from the desktop to the connected mobile device. These connected mobiledevices provide us with a far more dynamic relationship with the Internetembedding it in outdoor and everyday activities, bringing with it newexpectations regarding access to information. Another development that hasadded to the experience of augmented reality is the proliferation ofaugmented reality browser applications. A browser in this case can beperceived as a technology that overlays location-based information onto a cellphone's camera view and enables users to receive additional informationabout their surroundings. There are several big players in the augmentedreality browser business, however this paper focuses on Amsterdam based

augmented reality browser Layar.In a late 2010 interview with online publication Directions Magazineco-founder of Layar Claire Boonstra made some provoking statements regardingthe future of augmented reality. She stated: (...) we actually see AR as thenext mass media and in addition to this: And there are, theoretically, asmany layers possible as there are currently websites on the Internet.(Francica, 2010). Her opinion, being a market leader, is thought provoking. Itraises the question if augmented reality is really evolving from a cool gimmickon the periphery of graphics and visualization technologies to a central playerin the technology landscape. This paper sets out to investigate this question.

The aim of this paper is two-folded. First this paper explores

augmented reality as an information technology by (1) providing a workingdefinition of augmented reality and briefly discussing how the concept ofaugmented reality evolved overtime, (2) discussing in what forms todaysaugmented reality applications are presented, (3) what expectationsregarding augmented reality can be traced in popular discourse and Layarsown rhetorics. Second this paper sets out to critically explore the Dutchaugmented reality landscape through a case study of the Dutch augmentedreality browser Layar. A case study of Layar will be presented in which 621available layers in the Netherlands have been examined. This will result in alayer taxonomy that provides a categorization and an ordered classification

for future reference. The case study of Layar is centered on the two main


2/21

2

expectations that this paper will derive from the popular and industrydiscourse and it traces these expectations within the Layer-database.

2. Defining Augmented Reality

Augmented reality was often used inconsequently along with other termssuch as mixed reality or blended reality. These existing concepts all addressedthe interconnection between physical and digital spaces. Compatibilitybetween both real and virtual data has always been an important issue inaugmented reality (Wang and Dunston, 2006). In 1994 conceptualframeworks started working towards a distinction between different forms ofreality. Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino, who both are engineers whose focusis on display and control issues in virtual environments, produced aconceptual framework on reality spaces in their article A Taxonomy of MixedReality Virtual Displays. Here, Milgram and Kishino, described the merging of

real and virtual environments as a form of Mixed Reality (1994). In 1997writing a survey on the (then) current state of augmented reality Ronald

Azuma, now a research leader at Nokia Research Center, defined augmentedreality by three characteristics: it combines real and virtual, it is interactive inreal time and registered in 3D (366). His characteristics allow othertechnologies besides head mounted displays while retaining the essentialcomponents of augmented reality. Azuma also hinted towards a more mobilefunctionality for augmented reality writing that augmented reality systemsmust place a premium on portability, especially the ability to walk aroundoutdoors, away from controlled environments (371). To define and distinct

forms of enhanced realities Paul Milgram together with Herman Colquhoun,who is also an engineer who focuses on display and control issues in virtualenvironments, created an updated model of his 1994 taxonomy. This versionis displayed below.

Figure 1: Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Virtual Displays (Milgram & Colquhoun, 1999).

This model places the real environment on the left. This is the environmentthat is physically around us: buildings, trees, houses etcetera. On the right


3/21

3

side we see the virtual environment. These are environments that consist ofvirtual objects: computer simulated graphics, digital texts etcetera. Betweenthose poles two realities are placed: augmented reality and augmentedvirtuality. In this model the level of mixture defines whether environments areplaced under augmented reality or augmented virtuality. This creates the

distinction that a simulated world where images of real world environmentsare added, can be seen as augmented virtuality and a real world environmentwhere virtual elements are added to, can be seen as augmented reality.Milgram and Colquhoun coined the term mixed reality to define situations inwhich it is not clear whether the primary environment is real or virtual orwhen there is no predominance of real or virtual elements in theenvironment. Although this concept does consider connections betweenphysical and digital elements, their definition lacks a notion of mobility thatwas already stressed by Azuma. This is to some effect based on the fact thatdevices were lacking mobility; devices back then were big head-mounted or

head-up displays with see-through capabilities. For this reason it is useful totake a look at a different approach toward the definition of mixed andaugmented realities that was endorsed by Hiroshi Ishii, who is a Professor ofMedia Arts and Sciences of the Tangible Media Group at the MITs Media Lab.

Ishii foresaw desktop computing changing and foresaw two possibleapplications: onto our skin or bodies and onto the physical environments weinhabit. Whereas the first trend is connected to the definition of wearable

computing, the second is related to ubiquitous computing. Ishiis groupattempted to bridge the gap between cyberspace and physical environmentby making digital information (bits) tangible, focusing on how to bring the

immaterial bits of digital spaces into the physical world (233). The approachof the Tangible Bits project takes Milgram and Colquhouns definition one stepfurther by emphasizing the physicality of digital interfaces. Ishii attempted todemonstrate that the interfaces through which we connect to digital spacesdo change our perceptions of digital information and reconfigure ourperceptions of both physical and digital spaces. But more important to howwe know augmented reality nowadays is that Ishii emphasized the relevanceof mobility in the blurring of borders between physical and digital spaces byconnecting the forms of enhanced reality with wearable computers. This is animportant notion that was also emphasized by Lev Manovich, professor of

Visual Arts at the University of California, in an article where he introduces hisconcept of augmented spaces. In this article he describes a cultural shift inthe image of the virtual from an immersive virtual world to a psychical worldwith embedded digital information accessible via mobile media, emphasizingmobility (Manovich, 2002).

After examining earlier concepts and definitions we can define flows ofdigital data into the psychical space and mobility as key characteristics ofaugmented reality. This leads up to the following definition that this paper willadminister. Augmented reality is a technology that lets users add virtualelements (images, information) to a real world environment through aseamless interaction between real and virtual environments and providesusers with a tangible interface. It is important to stress that the flowing databetween both real and virtual space is compatible and that mobility of devices


4/21

4

and therefore users is a crucial element for augmented reality and theblurring of borders between physical and digital space. This paper nowexamines how augmented reality can be accessed.

3. Augmented reality: there is an app for that.

Unlike the old days augmented reality is now more portable then ever and isnot restricted to large devices that enable users to see an augmented reality.Todays phones and tablet-pcs that are equipped with a camera and a GPS-system function as augmented reality-hardware. In a collaborativetrendrapport presented by telecomprovider Horizon and conducted by TheNew Media Consortium, a globally focused not-for-profit consortium dedicatedto the exploration and use of new media and new technologies, andEDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, a community of higher education institutionsand organizations committed to advancing learning through information

technology innovation, this practice is explained with markers that symbolizedigital data. A camera on a mobile device sees the positions of these markers,which can be perceived as visual cues. These markers are used to interpretthe devices precise location and the nature of objects in their field of view.The marker is interpreted by software that brings up information in responseto physical reference points (Horizon Report, 2011).

The software that enables the camera to display digital informationattached to psychical markers is distributed in two forms: standaloneapplications and layers that are part of an augmented reality browser. I willbriefly discuss both forms.

3.1 Applications (apps)In Apple, Android and Ovi application stores there are numerous apps thathave a specific goal that can be reached with augmented reality. Most appsonly serve one specific goal. I will provide two examples. Word Lens(Quest

Visual, 2011) is a translation application that helps users translate foreignlanguages. Imagine coming across a road sign in Spain while on a holiday.While scanning the sign with your camera on a mobile phone and the WordLens app enabled, the app will overlay the words on the sign with the Englishtranslation. Another example is the Urban Augmented Reality(Netherlands

Architecture Institute, 2010) application that shows architecture that is nolonger or not yet there. Using the camera at specific locations this applicationshows the buildings that once stood there, that might have stood there, orthat will be built there in the future. The Museum of Londen has a similarapplication called StreetMuseum(Thumbspark Limited, 2010) that uses GPSpositioning and geo-tagging to allow users as they travel around the city ofLondon to view information and 3D historical images overlaid oncontemporary buildings and sites.

3.2 Augmented reality browserA browser in this sense can best be understood as a technology that overlays

location-based information onto a cell phone's camera view and enables usersto receive additional information about their surroundings. Although there are


5/21

5

other augmented reality browsers the leading browsers today are Wikitudeand Layar. These browsers contain several small applications that can beactivated within the browser. In Wikitudefor instance users can activateWikipedia and scan their surroundings to see if there are any pages onWikipedia relevant for their location. In Layarusers can activate a layer called

streetARt(MOB, 2011) that scans surroundings on nearby public art, graffiti,tags and sculptures.

4. Augmented discourse: Information everywhere, again.Participation please!

The case study of Layar is focused on expectations that we can pick up frompopular and Layers own rhetorics. This paper focuses on the popular andindustry discourses because it is in these discourses that we can distinctexplicit (social) expectations regarding augmented reality as an information

technology. In order to introduce the focus the case study this paper will nowbriefly discuss these discourses, but it will first address the academicdiscourse.

The academic discourse on augmented reality seems to have more of atechnical nature. Publications on augmented reality are mostly found in thediscourse on human-computer interaction (HCI) and are commonly build uponmedia researcher Steven Johnsons notion that interfaces define ourperceptions of the space we inhabit, defining interfaces as communicationmediators, representing information between two parts, making themmeaningful to one another (Johnson, 1997). Augmented reality is often

positioned as a new way of navigating and browsing information and ispresented as the most intuitive interface technologies have shown us (o.a.Portales et.al. 2009, Reitmayr & Schmalstieg 2004, Rudstrm et. al. 2005).

Although mostly restricted to the HCI discourse other academic fields are alsojoining the debate about the potential of augmented reality. Such fieldsinclude education (Grasset 2008, Dunleavy et al. 2008), entertainment(Cheok, 2010), surgery (Sanne et. al. 2009,)and urban planning andarchitecture (Schall et al. 2009). At this point this paper turns its focus onpopular discourse in order to trace the case studys focus points.

Popular discourse focus is on new ways users can access informationwith augmented reality. When I speak of popular discourse in this context Irefer to new media and technology blogs or websites. Expectations on waysof access are molded in articles on the most slick looking apps for mobiledevices that give access to augmented information (Cashmore 2009, Dumas2009, Elliot 2009, Freeman 2009, Hamburger 2011, Hepburn 2010, Kuang2009, Parr 2009). These publications focus on how information is presentedor accessed and on navigating information in city spaces. The basicunderlying idea is that everyone will have a smartphone and thereforeeveryone can access the web and its information at any time, at any place(Chen 2009, Fleishman 2009, Hubbard 2009, Kirckpatrick 2009, Van Grove2009). The same visions on augmented reality are also quite clear in the

closely related popular marketing discourse. Here publications focus on thepossibilities for marketeers to create cool looking advertisement spaces,


6/21

6

marketing outlets and create customer information spaces. These visions aremolded in texts that show other companies and brands that use augmentedreality for marketing purposes (Duncan 2011, Ken 2010, Lake 2010, Smith2009). Other publications in popular marketing discourse claim augmentedreality will change the entire marketing game altering customer engagement

strategies and business models (Cunningham 2011, Ewen 2011, Hayes 2009).These discourses appeal to the same pattern and reoccurring descriptionsregarding access to information that we have already seen in (utopian) webdiscourse. Again we have an unlimited access to information, only this timewe can access information everywhere in physical space. This notion will beone of two focus points in the case study of Layar.

The second focus point is derived from industry discourse. Keeping thispapers case study in mind, this analysis of industry discourse will focus onthe rhetorics Layar uses to describe the opportunities that the Layar productgives users. In the interview, presented in this papers introduction, with

Layars co-founder Claire Boonstra she states that augmented reality can beperceived as the next mass medium. Also emphasizing that Layar has thepotential to become as big as the web: And there are, theoretically, as manylayers possible as there are currently websites on the Internet. She also addsan interesting notion on user participation in this development: And you canadd your own layer to your reality (Francica, 2010). This latter notion is areoccurring element in Layars rhetorics. On the Layar website everyone canaccess a slide presentation that introduces the Layar developer platform. It isemphasized in this presentation that Layar is an open platform, invitingeveryone to join and build Layers (Layar, 2011).

Another striking example of this rhetoric is a video that Layar producedto introduce their platform and is also found on the companys website. Thefirst words that are spoken in this video are, again, from Layar co-founderClaire Boonstra: Layar is a platform where everybody can create their ownfantastic augmented reality experiences (Layer, 2011). Analyzing Layarscommunication, their rhetorics focus on user participation. Again we can traceoverlap with web discourse. Economic and cultural discourse on web relatedtopics such as web 2.0 and social media have been dominated withbuzzwords like collaborative culture and co-creation by manifestos such asWikinomics(Tapscott and Williams, 2006) and We-Think (Leadbeater, 2008).Tons of web applications give users the opportunity to build their own tools,customize existing ones or try to engage users in participation by letting themcontribute content, tag data and upload all sorts of mediatexts. Augmentedreality, again, seems to be chasing the same goal the web did. The notion ofuser participation will be the second point of focus in the case study.

User participation within augmented reality happens on two differentlevels. I will briefly discuss both levels. One way of enabling user participationis on a developer level. Augmented reality browsers such as Wikitude andLayar provide the opportunity to join their development community. Bothbrowsers can provide developers with an application programming interface(API) that enables them to contribute content to the browser. Both browsers

also offer other options. Wikitude offers a software development kit (SDK)which allows the open development of augmented reality experiences,


7/21

7

providing developers with the tools to either create their own augmentedreality applications, or enhance their existing applications with an augmentedreality camera-view engine. Layar offers a similar tool called The Layar Player.This basically is a unique piece of software code that can be added to anexisting application adding an augmented reality experience. Both browsers

also give access to augmented reality experiences that are created with third-party tools. There are a number of software applications that allow an easyconstruction of an augmented reality space. Examples of such tools arebuildAR, a tool that provides a way to add own datasets with information toan augmented experience, Poister, a service with a web-based interface foradding a dataset with points of interest to a map which can then be viewed inaugmented reality, and VISAR, a content management system that can show2D and 3D objects based on dataset input.

The other level of user participation is within the augmentedexperience. Some augmented reality applications or layers encourage users to

participate in collecting data. Data in this case could be everything; photos,location, video, wikis, messages. Some applications offer an option toparticipate within the applications, some redirect users to a web-interfacewhere they can upload data. One great example of both levels of participationis a layer called streetARt(MOB, 2011). This layer was created using theLayer Player toolto add an augmented reality experience and alsoencourages users to upload photos and locations of pieces of found streetart.

5. Browsing the Dutch augmented reality landscape

In the previous this paper has presented (1) unlimited access to informationeverywhere and (2) user participation as two key expectations in populardiscourse on augmented reality and in Layars rhetorics. This paper nowpresents an extensive case study on the Dutch augmented reality landscape.This case studys focus is centered on augmented reality browser Layar. Forthis case study 621 available layers in the Netherlands have been examined.

5.1 Method

For this research I used Layars own database of available layers on theirwebsite. The database offers a filter option per country so with the help ofthis tool I was able to easily filter out Layers that are only available in TheNetherlands. This resulted in a total of 621 available layers. It is important tostress that this research only conducted layers that were available on June16th. It is likely that the Layer database grew since then. It is also importantto stress that there are actually 632 layers available in The Netherlands.However, some of them do not contain any description on content, categoryand publisher. For this reason they are not included in this research. Minusthese layers, a total of 621 layers have been examined in this research.

Going over the hundreds of layers available, soon a rough taxonomy

starting to unfold. The first step in this research was dividing layers based onwho published the layer; brands, users, government, companies, and what


8/21

8

kind of information they contained. Most layer descriptions provided enoughinformation, but some of them had to be installed in order to grasp what theyare about. These results were categorized using spreadsheets. After theprocess of categorizing was completed, the data provided useful insights onwhich applications provided branded content and applications that provided

information based on other sources such as open data or user generatedcontent. This process provided enough data to trace the first focus point(information) in the Layar database.

To suit the second focus point (user participation) of this case study,the research needed to focus on the described levels of participation. Do theapplications engage in user participation and how many where actually buildwithin an amateur cult? To evaluate this I divided all categorized layers intothree categories: no user participation, user participation on a level ofcontributing data and user participation on a level of development. Again,some layers provided enough information in their description, others needed

further investigation by examining their origin and creators on relatedwebsites. Press releases proved to be really useful for this task. This secondprocess provided me with enough data to put the second focus point of thiscase study to the test.

This research eventually produced an overview of the Dutchaugmented reality landscape. The results of this research will be presented infour paragraphs, each with its own focus. First the entire Dutch landscape ispresented with a visualization of the conducted taxonomy. This taxonomy willprovide a quantitative classification of layers and each category will bedescribed based on their characteristics. Second the nature of available

information will be visualized using a Venn diagram. Third this researchzooms in on user participation and visualizes and elaborates on how userparticipation is represented in the Layar-database. Finally this paper willreflect on its findings in this exploration in the Dutch augmented realitylandscape.

5.2 The Layar Landscape

Layar is one of the worlds leading augmented reality browser platforms.Founded in 2009 their global database exceeds over 2500 layers. The Layar

browser uses a phones build-in camera, compass, global positioning system(GPS) and an accelerometer. Layers are web services that userepresentational state transfer (REST), a style of software architecture fordistributed hypermedia. The World Wide Web uses the same softwarearchitecture. Layers are developed and maintained by other parties using thefree API. Layar is, much like Apple and his App Store, responsible for theirvalidation in the publication process.

With only a few native stand-alone apps Layar, with its 621 layers,plays a big role in the Dutch augmented reality landscape. The image belowshows a visual representation of the Layer augmented reality landscape and

provides a taxonomy. The square size represents the specific percentage of a


9/21

9

category within the total landscape (100%). Each category will be furtherexamined.

Figure 2: Visual taxonomy of the Dutch Augmented Reality Landscape.

Government applications

Government applications make up for 5,5 percent (34 layers) of the totallandscape. The Dutch government publishes these applications and in generaluses datasets from the open data initiative the Dutch government hasstarted. Examples of such layers are the Politiebureaus(VTS PolitieNederland, 2009) layer that guides users to the nearest police station and theGGD in Nederland(GGD, 2010) that guides users to the nearest publichealthcare station.

Region/City applicationsThese applications count for 21,4 percent (133 layers) percent of the Dutchaugmented reality landscape. The nature of these applications is actually twofolded. On the one hand they are useful directories provided by local


10/21

10

governments that display information about a region or a citys history, natureand local specialties. On the other hand they are examples of what can bestbe described as city marketing; cities that use all kinds of media applicationsas strategic promotion of a city, with the aim of altering the externalperceptions of a city in order to encourage tourism, attract inward migration

of residents, or enable business relocation. These applications are informativefor users on the one hand but also serve as promotional tools withcommercial purposes. Cities or regions are actually presented as brands inthese strategies. Examples of such applications are Beleef Dokkum(NOFCOM,2010) and the Haarlem(City Marketing Haarlem, 2010)layer. Beleef Dokkumshows museums, local monuments, a local shop directory for the city ofDokkum. The Haarlemlayer points towards the most popular shops andthings to do in the city of Haarlem.

User participation apps

User participation is enabled in 21,3 percent (132 layers) of all layersavailable in the Netherlands. These applications are either created by users orenable user participation; in the latter case the applications are not connectedto a specific brand. The category appeals to the two levels of participationthis paper has presented earlier and counts for twenty-one percent of theDutch landscape. This category will be further examined in the forthcoming.Examples for this category are Skatespots(Skatespots, 2010) and Flood(Kimik, 2011).Skatespotsallows users to tag their skate spots on a map andshare this location with other skaters. Floodis a project by artists KarinaPlosi and Kim Dijkstra who created a layer that floods your surroundings

with water.

Semi-brand applicationsSemi-brand applications are not connected to a specific brand but containonly commercial content and count for 16,3 percent (101 layers) of the Dutchlandscape. Often these applications are directories showing you what shopsare around you, what houses are for sale, where you can find a hotel or arestaurant. A general rule for this category is that it provides information withcommercial purposes and redirects users to brands, in this case being nearbyshops, hotels etcetera. A perfect example of this category is Sales Locator(StyleToday, 2010). This application enables users to scan streets for salesand discounts. But this app only shows information by allied partners, such asH&M, Vero Moda, ONLY and Hunkemuller, redirecting users to brands. TheAllHotels(allMarkers, 2010) layer also applies this strategy only showing nearbyhotel recommendations from major booking websites.

Brand applications20,3 percent (126 layers) of all layers are connected to brands. Theseapplications are part of a brands marketing strategy and mostly offerinformation on where the closest store is such as the Score(Kega, 2010)Mazda(Mazda, 2010) and C1000(C1000, 2010) applications. ING, a banking

service, offers a applications called Geldautomaten zoeken(ING, 2009) thatsearches for the nearest ATM and Funda, a real estate agency, offers an


11/21

11

application called Real Estate Search(Funda, 2010) that shows houses thatare for sale.

OtherThis last category mostly consists of experimental augmented reality games,

school projects and artists that offer a glimpse of some of the possibilities.This category represents 15,3 percent (95 layers) of the Dutch augmentedreality landscape. Examples are the gameARcade(hpsc.fr, 2010)that enablesusers to play Pacman in public spaces using augmented reality. A project byDutch artist Thijs Sprangers called Landscape Interrupt(Thijs Zweers, 2011)uses augmented reality to display virtual sculptures onto typical Dutchlandscapes. Another example is a project, conducted by the department ofInformation and Computer Sciences at Utrecht University, called Rooster(Lennart Herlaar, 2010)that shows timetables of which courses are whereand at what time in university buildings.

This taxonomy has provided six categories; government applications,region/city applications, user applications, semi-brand applications, brandapplications and other applications. In the forthcoming this paper will zoom inon information and user participation

5.3 Production of information

As the taxonomy presented in the above shows the information that isdisplayed in the Dutch public spaces is largely produced by brands. Figure 3

shows how this information is divided in non-branded information andbranded information.


12/21

12

Figure 3: A visual representation of how much available information is provided by brands.

As the models shows almost thirty-seven percent of all information availablein the Dutch augmented reality landscape is provided by brands. This can beperceived as a modern version of what has been described by Otto Riewoldtas brandscapes in his book on retail design. Brandscapes are unique spaces

brands create for themselves. In the retail design paradigm this reflects onunique psychical in-store experiences to promote and sell goods (Riewoldt,2002). The augmented experience provided by brands appeal to the samenotion.

The purple bubble in the model represents the category of Region/Cityapplications. As this paper already argued these applications balance a thinline between branded and non-branded information due to their two-foldednature. For this reason this category is placed on a combined level. If we takethis category into a strictly branded account, focusing on their role as part ofcity marketing and placing it within the domain of branded information, the

total of branded information rises to almost fifty-eight percent; meaning that


13/21

13

over half of all information in augmented public spaces is produced bybrands.

The current state of information in Layar appeals to the idea of a staticenvironment. Whether build by users or brands layers display staticinformation from datasets that contain locations of hotels, hotspots, museums

and shops. This can be considered as already known information. Themajority of layers focuses on directories and seems to just remediate existinginformation in a new medium.

5.4 Zooming in on user participation

As displayed in the taxonomy a little over twenty-one percent (132 layers) ofall layers enable user participation. This is displayed in the graphic below.

Figure 4: Ratio of layers that enable user participation.

This paper has already described how user participation within augmentedreality happens on two different levels: (Level 1) on a developer level whereanyone can create a augmented reality application or in this case layer, (Level2) on a level of integrated user participation contributing data of all sorts. Anexploration of this category presents how these levels of participation can betraced in the Layar-database.


14/21

14

Figure 5: Visual representation on what levels user participation occurs within the Layer-database.

As it did before, the small bubble again represents an overlap, this timebetween the two levels. These apps are developed by users and enable userparticipation within the application as well. An example of this is Ecocritique(Ecocritique Inc., 2010), an environmental network that allows users tocomment on the state of the environment around them. Users generatemarkers to tag what it is that they have seen by using Ecocritiquefor iPhoneor Ecocritique.com. Users can mark a location, anywhere on the globe, wherethey have noticed environmental misdeeds or best practices worth noting.Their review of the location then appears on maps on the Ecocritique App andwebsite, using the latest GPS technology. The layer was also build by thisenvironment initiative so participation happens on both levels. Otherexamples are StreetARt (MOB, 2011) for sharing Streetart pictures andlocations, FreeSpace (SpaceLiberation, 2010) for sharing ideas for artisticspaces, Monkey Drop (Just add Monkeys, 2011) for leaving digital monkeys

for others to find and MijnVisStek (Marco Ippel, 2010) for tagging and sharinggood spots to fish. All these applications allow users to tag digital information


15/21

15

onto a psychical object or space either through the application itself or a webinterface database and they all share that they are created by individuals.

As the model shows user participation is most active on a developerlevel, accounting for 68,2 percent combining strictly level 1 layers and layersthat contain both levels of participation (90 layers). Users can create

augmented spaces for others to enjoy or inform themselves, but where userscannot contribute data. Examples of this can be found in layers such asSpanish Revolution (B_cultura, 2011) and YouTube Around (Almera

Aumentada, 2010). The Spanish Revolution layer displays Flickr photos thatare tagged with #spanishrevolution. This layer was published during the riseof protests by young adults in Spain against the enormous unemploymentrates the country is facing. YouTube Around enfolds local events withinaugmented space. YouTube around is a user-created layer that showsvideosuploaded near a users location.

The other level of participation is found in 42 layers within Layars-

database. These applications do enable users contributing data, either withinthe app of through a web interface. The layerAlbum Cover Atlas(The WordMagazine, 2010) points users towards places where photos for legendaryalbum covers were shot. Users can contribute to this database by addinglocations in the application or upload album covers in a web interfacedatabase. In Message Central 1.2 (DnL Productions Inc., 2010) users cancreate messages and attach them to a GPS-point within the app. Users canselect a position using the camera, type a message and attach it to a locationfor others to see.

5.5 Browsing Layar

The case study of Layar this paper has conducted investigated how the twokey expectations derived from popular discourse and Layars own rhetoricscan be traced within the Layer-database of available layers in TheNetherlands. Regarding information there are two things worth noting. One isthat most Layers display static information. This information is collected inexisting datasets and displayed as directories within augmented reality. Theability to interact with everything in the world as we see it and get real-timeinformation/interaction out of it is still a big challenge. It seems that thecurrent state of augmented reality is focused on static objects and all things

known. The second observation is that information within augmented spacesis mostly produced by brands or brand-related agents. This paper hasdescribed these layers as modern versions of brandscapes: unique spacescreated by brands. In an earlier study on augmented spaces Professor of

Visual Arts Lev Manovich suggested that these spaces exist within an estheticparadigm and the construction of these spaces can be approached as anarchitectural task for designers (Manovich, 2002). Now, nine years later, thefield of augmented reality in The Netherlands is still part of the sameparadigm. The artistic architects Manovich was referring to are in fact thedesigners that work at marketing and interactive media agencies. They create

brand related information spaces that (potential) consumers can engage in.On an information level we can draw direct comparisons with the web,


16/21

16

perceiving these brandscapes as the corporate websites, advertisement pop-ups and banners we know from the web. In augmented reality thesecommercial outlets appear to us as branded spaces.

The promise of user participation by Layar co-founder Claire Boonstrais in fact fairly recognizable: users in fact created one out of five available

layers. Since Layer is only on the market since 2009 and with easy toolkitsthat enable easy creation still on the rise, this is actually quite a good result.In-application user participation seems to be struggling to set foot.Technological limitations seem to limit layers to display real time andinteractive information. Further down the line of technological developmentimage recognition and tracking capabilities will evolve and might add moreoptions for real time and interactive display of information.

The most prevalent uses of augmented reality so far have been in theconsumer sector for things like marketing, social engagement, amusementand location-based information, the fact that user participation is already

adopted is the first step in transcending an old paradigm and is contributingto the fact that users can help shape the augmented reality field. Thereforethe field does not have to rely on brands alone to take the next step in thistechnology.


17/21

17

6. Conclusion

This paper has explored augmented reality as an information technology andprovided an extensive case study of the Dutch augmented reality landscape

focusing on augmented reality browser Layar.First, flows of digital data into the psychical and mobility have been

presented as key characteristics of augmented reality. Augmented reality canbe perceived as a technology that enables users to add virtual elements(images, information) to a real world environment through a seamlessinteraction between real and virtual environments. Today the technology ofaugmented reality is situated in the cameras in connected mobile devices.The software that enables the camera to display digital information attachedto psychical markers is distributed in two forms: standalone applications andlayers that are part of an augmented reality browser.

This paper has presented unlimited access to information everywhereand user participation as two key expectations in popular discourse onaugmented reality and in Layars own rhetorics. These expectations havebeen put to the test in a case study on the Dutch augmented realitylandscape. This case study focuses on augmented reality browser Layar. Forthis case study all 621 available layers in the Netherlands have beenexamined. Results have been presented in a visual taxonomy and sixcategories have been classified; government applications, region/cityapplications, user applications, semi-brand applications, brand applicationsand other applications that are often experimental games.

Regarding information there are two things worth noting. The currentstate of information in Layar appeals to the idea of a static environment.Whether build by users or brands layers display static information andremediate existing information in a new medium. Also, over half of theinformation within augmented spaces is produced by brands or brand-relatedagents. This paper has described these layers as modern versions ofbrandscapes: unique spaces created by brands.

The promise of user participation by Layar co-founder Claire Boonstrais fairly recognizable: users in fact created one out of five available layers.Since Layer is only on the market since 2009 and with toolkits that enableeasy creation still on the rise, this is actually a good result. However, in-

application user participation seems to be struggling to set foot.In the near future image recognition and tracking capabilities will

evolve and might add more options for real time and interactive display ofinformation and might give a boost to in-application user participation. Thecurrent state of the Dutch augmented reality landscape shows that it islargely dominated by use in the consumer sector for things like marketing,social engagement, amusement and location-based information. In the nextfive years we should see significant advances in augmented reality technologythat have their effect on how information within a augmented experience isproduced and accessed. However, a shift from gimmick to utility is needed in

order to become a central player in the technology landscape.


18/21

18

7. Literature

Azuma, R.T. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators andVirtual Environments 6 (1997): 355385.

Cashmore, Pete. "Augmented Reality Twitter is the Coolest Thing Ever." SocialMedia News and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. N.p., 4 Aug.2009. Web. 28 June 2011. .

Chen, Brian X. "If Youre Not Seeing Data, Youre Not Seeing | Gadget Lab |Wired.com."Wired.com. N.p., 25 Aug. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011..

Cheok, Adrian. Human Pacman: A Mobile Augmented Reality Entertainment

System Based on Physical, Social, and Ubiquitous Computing. Art andTechnology of Entertainment Computing and Communication. Springer-

Verlag, London. 2010

Cunningham, Tasha. "How augmented reality can engage your customers -Business Monday - MiamiHerald.com."Business Monday. N.p., 12 June 2011.Web. 28 June 2011..

Dumas, Daniel . "7 Best Augmented Reality Apps | Magazine." Wired.com.N.p., 21 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011..

Duncan. "Volkswagen Virtual Test Drive | The Inspiration Room." TheInspiration Room | Advertising creativity from around the world. N.p., 12 Mar.2011. Web. 28 June 2011..

Dunleavy, M. et al. Affordances and limitations of immersive participatoryaugmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of ScienceEducation and Technology, 18. (2008).

Elliot, Amy-Mae. "10 Amazing Augmented Reality iPhone Apps." Social MediaNews and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. N.p., 26 Dec.2009. Web. 28 June 2011. .

Ewen, Sam . "Why Augmented Reality Is Poised To Change Marketing." SocialMedia News and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. N.p., 8 June2011. Web. 28 June 2011. .


19/21

19

Fleishman, Glenn. "5 New Technologies That Will Change Everything |PCWorld."Reviews and News on Tech Products, Software and Downloads |PCWorld. N.p., 20 Oct. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011.

Francica, Joe. "Augmented Reality: A New Mass Media? - All Points Blog."AllPoints Blog: Our Opinion, Your Views of All Things Location. N.p., 28 Oct.2010. Web. 2 June 2011. .

Freeman, Dave. " Bionic Eye app creates augmented reality on your iPhone3GS ."MobileCrunch. N.p., 23 Sept. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011.

Grasset, R., Dunser, A., & Billinghurst, M. Edutainment with a mixed realitybook: A visually augmented illustrative childrens' book. InternationalConference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. 2008.

Hamburger, Ellis. "Best Augmented Reality Apps For iPhone andiOS." Business Insider. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 June 2011..

Hayes, Gary. "16 Top Augmented Reality Business Models | PERSONALIZEMEDIA." Personalizemedia. N.p., 20 Sept. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011..

Hepburn, Aden. " Top 10 Augmented Reality Examples | Digital BuzzBlog."Digital Buzz Blog | Digital Campaigns, Online Marketing, Social & More..N.p., 9 Mar. 2010. Web. 28 June 2011. .

Hubbard, Sid Gabriel. " Augmented Reality: A Human Interface for AmbientIntelligence ." ReadWriteWeb - Web Apps, Web Technology Trends, SocialNetworking and Social Media. N.p., 12 Aug. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011.

Ishii, H. Tangible bits: Coupling physicality and virtuality through tangible userinterfaces. In Y. Ohta & H. Tamura (Eds.), Mixed reality: Merging real andvirtual worlds. New York: Springer. (1999):229-246.

Johnson, S. Interface culture: How technology transforms the way we create

and communicate. San Francisco, CA: HarperEdge. 1997.


20/21

20

Ken. " 5 examples of Augmented Reality being used by business |messaliberty."A Web Technology Startup in Osaka Japan | messaliberty.N.p., 1 July 2010. Web. 28 June 2011..

Kirckpatrick, Marshall. " Augmented Reality: 5 Barriers to a Web That'sEverywhere ."ReadWriteWeb - Web Apps, Web Technology Trends, SocialNetworking and Social Media. N.p., 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011.

Kuang, Cliff. "Five To-Die-For Augmented Reality Shopping Apps." FastCompany. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 June 2011. .

Lake, Chris. "Augmented reality: 10 real world examples from thesuperbrands | Econsultancy." Econsultancy | Become a smarter digitalmarketer. N.p., 20 May 2010. Web. 28 June 2011..

Layar. Layar introduction for developers. March, 2011.< http://www.layar.com/development/>

Layar. Impactful Augmented Reality in Your Everyday Life. March, 2011.

< http://www.layar.com/development/browser/>

Leadbeater, Charles. We-think: the power of mass creativity. London: ProfileBooks Ltd, 2008.

Manovich, L. "The Poetics of Augmented Space." Visual Communication5.2(2006): 219-240.

Milgram, P, and F. Kishino. "A Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays."Transactions of Network Reality 12 (1994): 1321-1329.

Milgram, P., & Colquhoun, H., Jr. A taxonomy of real and virtual world displayintegration. In Y. Ohta & H. Tamura (Eds.), Mixed reality: Merging real andvirtual worlds. New York: Springer. (1999): 5-28.

Parr, Ben . "Top 6 Augmented Reality Mobile Apps [Videos]."Social MediaNews and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. N.p., 19 Aug.2009. Web. 28 June 2011. .

Portals, C. et. al. Augmented reality and photogrammetry: A synergy to

visualize physical and virtual city environments. ISPRS Journal ofPhotogrammetry and Remote Sensing (65) 1. (2010):134-142


21/21

Reitmayr, G, and D. Schmalstieg. Collaborative Augmented Reality forOutdoor Navigation and Information Browsing. Symposium on LocationBased Services and TeleCartography. University of Vienna. (2004): 31-41.

Riewoldt, Otto. Brandscaping: worlds of experience in retail design. Basel:Birkhauser, 2002.

Rudstrom, A. Hook, K. Svensson, M. Designing the Seams between Social,Physical and Digital Space. Swedish Institute of Computer Science. 2009.

Sanne, M., I. Botden, and J. Jakimowicz. "What is going on in augmentedreality simulation in laparoscopic surgery?."SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY. New

York: Springer. (2009):1693-1700.

Schall et. al. Handheld Augmented Reality for underground infrastructurevisualization.Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Volume 13 Issue 4, May2009.

Smith, Alex. "Augmented reality: top ten campaigns (so far) - Brand RepublicNews."Advertising, media, marketing and PR news & jobs - Brand Republic.N.p., 16 June 2009. Web. 28 June 2011..

Tapscott, Don, and Anthony D. Williams. Wikinomics: how mass collaborationchanges everything. New York: Portfolio, 2006.

The New Media Consortium, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. "Two to ThreeYears: Augmented Reality 2011 Horizon Report." 2011 HORIZON REPORT.N.p., 8 Feb. 2011. Web. 12 June 2011..

Van Grove, Jennifer. "Augmented Reality Devices: See the Online World WhileWalking the Real One." Social Media News and Web Tips Mashable TheSocial Media Guide. N.p., 6 Jan. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011..

Wang, X., Dunston, P.S. Compatibility issues in Augmented Reality systemsfor AEC: An experimental prototype study. Automation in Construction 15(2006): 314326.

Browsing the Dutch Augmented Reality Landscape

Documents

Transcript of Browsing the Dutch Augmented Reality Landscape