Talk:Augmented reality

History of augmented reality

I disagree with the invention of Augmented Reality: There are at least two groups who have published their work about augmented reality before: This group does medical AR, but they call it like that. Michael Bajura, Henry Fuchs, and Ryutarou Ohbuchi. Merging virtual objects with the real world: seeing ultrasound imagery within the patient. In Proceedings of the 19th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, pages 203-210. ACM Press, 1992.

Look at the title and the publication date: T.P. Caudell and D.V. Mizell. Augmented reality: An application of heads-up display technology to manual manufacturing technologyaugmented reality. In Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1992.

(Reply:) Well, the article states that the CACM issue *coined* the term, not that it was the first time the term was used. The above mentioned conference papers had very confidential distributions (a few hundreds copies at most, in pre-internet area), compared to the echo the CACM issue had: 120000 copies where printed, plus a distribution to all SIGGRAPH attendees (30000+) that year, plus an award for the best scientific magazine issue of the year, awarded by the american publication board that year too. That magazine issue was perhaps the most influential scientific magazine issue of the decade and started tens of research projects accross the world.... Granted, that was just when the www started to catch too, and it did shadow the domain quite quickly.

I think the CACM issue really started it all, just as Mark Weiser's paper "The computer of the XXIst century" in Sci. Am. 1991 started the field of ubiquitous computing, even though Xerox PARC had been working on the topic for about 10 years already.

In summary: I think the article is right on this portion of the history of augmented reality. Yet, it is quite clear there are two competing interpretations of the same concept in this article, which is quite unsettling.

(Reply:) Your use of "coined" is incorrect. Look it up here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coined. Based on the definition of the word, and the fact that Boeing researchers used the term "augmented reality" previously (see quote below), the history section should be revised.

"In 1990, a group of Boeing researchers proposed that a see-through virtual reality head-mounted display that was registered with the real world could be used as an aid in the manufacturing of airplanes by overlaying simple graphics on top of the real world. The term "Augmented Reality" was coined, and Boeing found that an ideal candidate for this technology was the Commercial Airplane Group's wireshop where wire harnesses are pre-fabricated before installing on airplanes." http://www.blu.org/cone/Notices/97-98/April/VR_Apr16.txt

What about HUD system's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-up_display eze1981

Concentration

Aboard large vessals, it's possible to create these 'worlds' through usage of interceeding dooways which lead to perceptual real world events, like tables under an awning, and so forth. To be quite accurate, the perception of venus today is an augmented reality in itself. What were you up to. As time passes, more information gets logged onto Wikipedia and so forth. More people, less action. Actions consume time, and space seperated us from these people. If however there are simulated skies inside, then these virtual world on parralel moniters make it possible to reconstruct their virtual reality for everyday use. As one might think though, it only goes to show how important life is unto itself, death for instance is a construct of the human psychy, so only "important" people may pass and allow for people to enter these areas. By the way, spider-man is invisible: If you didn't already know. Feels good.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU24 - Sect 200 - Thu

— Assignment last updated by Zq2197 (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Society, Ethics, and Technology

— Assignment last updated by Charshenk (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP25 - Sect 202 - Thu

— Assignment last updated by PAM Editor (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Article overhaul

The article is in need of overhaul. It should be rearranged into sections for displays, tracking, input devices, processing, and other additional categories. If no one does this before me, I will do it. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding artists to the Visual art section

Hi there. I'm trying to add new artists to the Uses > Visual art section, but these are being removed. The reasoning has been: "don't seem significant enough to go into this article" and "this isn't a place to mention an individual artist like this". This was then flagged as an edit war, with instruction "Seek consensus on the talk page rather than trying to force this in via edit warring". So I'd like to do so, and seek consensus rather than outright removals, as I have a number of artists to add to this section.

My question is, what is deemed "significant" here, and what does "like this" mean re: adding individual artists to this section? The first artist added is a known (on Wiki) artist, the examples are adding to the field (i.e. voice recognition based AR contemporary art), and the references are according to requirements (and are government and/or council links). If someone can provide an example of what is appropriate here re: adding artists like this, i.e. a consensus on format, that would be great. I can then continue to add artists that have contributed to this field. Townstrider (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of artists. We haven't even established that this artist ought to be listed here, let alone that even more should be added. MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned creating a directory of artists. Going back to the question at hand (so we can get to a consensus): what is deemed "significant" here, and what does "like this" mean re: adding individual artists to this section? Please see the editing policy.

Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely, and encourage discussion rather than edit warring.

So as above, the deletions were without clear explanation. The changes need to be explained so we can move on and work on a solution. The outcome I'm seeking is the accepted and correct way to add an artist here as per the existing artists added. Townstrider (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The explanation is clear - there is no apparent reason to write a paragraph about this particular artist on this article. You're not going to be able to reverse the burden here, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify the addition, not on others. Are you associated with this artist in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

This was not stated: "there is no apparent reason to write a paragraph about this particular artist on this article". Justification has been given: "The first artist added is a known (on Wiki) artist, the examples are adding to the field (i.e. voice recognition based AR contemporary art), and the references are according to requirements (and are government and/or council links)". I'm fine if the artist is not included, but in good faith, what is the correct way to include an artist? I don't think it's appropriate to ask for personal details on this page, it's concerning and falls under harassment. Townstrider (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

If you really think that is harassment, which is a very serious accusation, you should report that at WP:ANI. MrOllie (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Now waiting for consensus so we can move on. Townstrider (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI, you haven't posted at WP:ANI as far as I can see, you may have forgotten to submit? (Also, I really wouldn't recommend doing that, this is clearly a content dispute and not harassment.) JaggedHamster (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I have contacted an admin as suggested on that page, rather than submit. So I'm working through it that way thanks. The user suggested I was creating a directory of artists, which I wasn't and never stated. The user gave a "new" explanation that wasn't given in the first place, but said it was. The user asked for personal details on this page, instead of private talk, which is not appropriate or needed at all in this context. In addition, you do not see the private conversation we are having which has more inflammatory content. I have complied with all requests. Please keep on topic from here, and let's reach a consensus on the actual item. From what I understand we should be collaborating re: finding a solution. Townstrider (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

On that, it's not just the Visual Arts section that's too directory like, I've gone through and removed what seemed the worst cruft, there's still a fair bit of tidying up that could be done though. JaggedHamster (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It needs work. I am happy to tidy up the Visual Arts piece re: directory like - if I get an indication of how it should be formatted. I'm here in good faith, wanting to improve this page. Townstrider (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I should add. Some content in the Visual Arts section (existing) is factually not correct, but I won't be making edits of any kind on this page further until this issue is resolved. Townstrider (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)