5 points

1. I could see this project helping Drexel students be able to go to local stores. I know that many of us have cars on campus and just drive to locations that we already know of to purchase goods and services. If more students knew what was on Lancaster Ave, they would be able to just walk minutes from their house.

2. Augmented Reality - After a few weeks about learning about augmented reality, I feel like I understand it much better. I think that some Drexel students would be able to pick up on it right away but I'm sure others wouldn't understand what is really going on. But I think we should put together a workshop or a webinar (or both) to explain the uses and how to use the application.

3. Smart phones - I could the fact that not everyone has a smartphone an issue. Would we have any other way people could go on this tour? I know we don't have the most time but is there anyway we could have an online version for people without smartphones?

4. The fact that we are using a few different people for our project will make the prespective different. If we were only using one person, then we wouldn't be getting the full affect. I'm excited to hear about other people's stories and learn more about the area I have attended school only minutes away from.

5. I really enjoyed hearing from Joe last week about the different things that the University City District works on throughout the year. I was not aware that they had that many different events going on. I would love to learn more and experience all that UC has to offer.

5 things interesting

5 Things that I found interesting from the readings:

1. I find it interesting the mobile devices are becoming a way of digital computing for the 21st century. It is interesting to see how RFID's such as a toll booth scanner can identify who a person is and know to either bill them or deduct money from an account that has already been set up.

2. augmented reality is really cool once you understand how it works. I know sometimes it's frustrating trying to figure out how to work the sheet of paper in the right way to read the scan bar. In the end, I think it's going to be really cool when we can go to a tag on Lancaster, scan it, and hear/see a story behind that area.

3. Perception is key. What we see in a certain spot is not going to be the same thing that someone like George, Joe, Kevin, or any of these other people are going to see when looking. We all have different perceptions of things and it's going to be really cool seeing what other people see. We are also giving everyone a chance to see the neighborhood how the people who grew up here see things.

4. Just because something is just space to us, doesn't mean it's not a place to someone else. Every space has meaning to it so it's not just space, but a place as well.

5. there can be consequences to locative media. Because it is on the computer, it has limited privacy and even with the strongest privacy settings, things can still get hacked. It's a changing world and technology changes it more and more every day.

Most of the issues that I think are important to address have come from our guest speakers.

1. Neighborhood separation - It's awesome that Drexel wants to collaborate with the Powelton/University City neighborhood. It seems, from what we've heard, that the community - especially the business community - welcomes our presence. But is the idea catching on with Drexel students? I'd say that it's an oral legacy that the "safe zones" on campus extend only to 36th Street to the west and Spring Garden to the north. Also, I can't stop thinking about the bar at 39th and Chestnut, Drinkers West. It's rumored that the "college nights" and use of college IDs to avoid a ridiculous cover have intended to drive out the local crowd and draw in the university crowd. Can we effectively reach a state of collaborative existence with (seemingly) deliberate efforts to keep the college population and the local population separate?

2. Digital divide - our project is based on the use of smart phone technology. Super cool. How can we avoid/overcome the fact that access to smart phone technology is a pre-requisite for experiencing this project? Who is our intended audience for the project, and are we effectively reaching them with our approach to this project?

3. How will this project benefit Drexel? I still don't have a clear understanding of the details, but it seems like this class is more than just an interesting special topics class. From what I can tell, someone in Drexel's administration wanted us to do this. What were they hoping to get from it, and are we delivering what they expected? How important is it that we deliver what they expected?

4. Earlier in the term, we touched briefly on how the potential of this type of technology could in some ways be used in ways that scare us, threaten our privacy, etc. Does our project and efforts like ours redirect the potential to show that good, creative, cultural things can come out of it all? Or are we just facilitating the mainstreaming of it, which may lead to its use in ways with which we are uncomfortable? (I think we're redirecting and exploring the potential, but I think this is an interesting thing to talk about when working with a new technology.)

5. That's all I've got for now. I'll come up with another tonight.

5 Points of Interest

1. One point that I found very interesting was the idea that sensory ethnography exists on two levels; the body and the mind. This correlates to what we are doing because when we are walking down Lancaster there are certain things that we take pictures of simply because we like the way they look, whereas other things that we have captured have been for more theoretical or spiritual reasons.
2. The importance of “place” in ethnography was another point I found interesting. This idea goes along with the different demographics on either side of 38^th street as described by Joe in class.
3. The point that was made about how locative media has helped emphasize the fact that digital content is placeless relates to what we are planning to do with our final project. By taking pictures and associating stories and other such things with them it is making these images more than just pictures but is giving them that sense of being an actual place not just simply a picture.
4. I found the idea of social authoring to be very interesting because that is basically what we are doing with this project. We are taking an urban environment that many people would just look at as a bunch of building and are giving them character and personality through our work and insights.
5. I was really drawn to the focus on mobile devices used to create locative media because that is what I have been exclusively using to document and research. With the creation of smart phones, I can now take pictures as well as take audio clips all with just my phone. I don’t need a camera to do these things anymore which makes it really convenient that I can do these kinds of things with something that I carry around on my all the time anyway. It saves money as well as frustration for not having to need extra equipment to do a project like ours.

Mobile Interface theory post

Hi guys here are a few of the interesting take aways I got from the reading.

1) Papyrus is a form of mobile media this is more of a comment on my own ethnocentrism when it comes to mobile media and how I automatically characterize as digital media - smart phone.

2)The author used the pocket watch and clock tower as an interesting example of social stud within the concept of technology and the compression of spatial boundaries and the discussion of "local time"

3)Tension Between proximity and distance and the relative nature of the usage. The idea of using it as a social cacoon and also as an opposite, the ability to bring those who are far closer.

4) pervasive computing - the idea of a shift is social norms where the author commented on an article about how one day he noticed that people were staring into their phones as opposed to speaking into them.

5) Transformation of location into an information interface - portable mobile device to acquire information - our project.

Zooburst

I tried to make a story on Zooburst. I found it pretty easy to navigate. When making the captionings I had some difficulty getting them to save. Even though I would click save twice every time I typed a caption, when I made a new page and went back it would disappear. I would have to retype the captioning in every time.

Once I created my story I found my pages to be completely flipped from how I saved them. So the bigger images I put in the background blocked the images I saved in the front. I tried editing them and rotating it but it still came out the same way. I found I could rotate the pages as I was viewing the story. That was a little frustrating. I did like how there were a ton of images to choose from and they gave me ideas for my story. Did anyone else have the same problems I did?

Extra Suggestions

1. Avoid having too many objects intersect one another. Junaio doesn't do well will occlusion and you might get weird effects on their end when you try and have two objects occupy the same space.

2. The height feature in ZooBurst is new, and as such the drag and drop functionality for objects that are above the "floor" of the AR world is less than great. Craig needs to do some more coding on the ZB side to make this work, but for now know that if you are moving "floating" objects around you might have to play with your mouse a bit before you can actually grab onto the objects (it's totally do-able but it can be weird at certain angles)

3. Currently we only can support rotation around the Y axis in Juanio (up/down) -- Craig is working on getting the other two axes to work, but Junaio is totally weird when it comes to programming 3D objects and they never quite behave.