That is an incredible piece of wearable technology. This 'augmented book' has the potential to animate the reading experience beyond the longstanding ink-on-paper ritual and recent e-book adaptation. The news article reminds me of other wearable technologies that are perceived to enhance every day life (e.g. Google Glass or MotionX). It also recalls more invasive 'wearable' technologies where some people have gone so far as to implant magnets under their skin in order to 'feel' nearby magnetic fields.
Thanks for sharing this. I have always enjoyed technology news but more so particularly when it comes to advancements that reflect human and nonhuman actors as 'fitting' symbionts. In particular, one quote from the article stands out: "Instead of asking the reader to empathize with its heroine, the book uses physical stimuli to enforce that connection." This is a powerful statement, which certainly iterates notions of power/knowledge that is all too common among Foucauldians. In this sense, accepting that nonhuman actors can "enforce" connections physically, perhaps Bruno Latour is accurate when he discusses how "objects too have agency". However, with poor literacy rates in certain parts of the world (e.g. "nearly half of [Detroit's population is] functionally illiterate"), might this approach to reading be harmful for early readers? Or should we think of this wearable technology as something that is more so geared toward 'adult consumption' given its perceived full-body experience?
Works Cited: Latour, Bruno. 2005. "Objects too have agency" in "Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory", Oxford University Press Huffington Post. 2011. "Nearly Half of Detroit's Adults Are Functionally Illiterate, Report Finds"
Thanks for sharing this. I have always enjoyed technology news but more so particularly when it comes to advancements that reflect human and nonhuman actors as 'fitting' symbionts. In particular, one quote from the article stands out: "Instead of asking the reader to empathize with its heroine, the book uses physical stimuli to enforce that connection." This is a powerful statement, which certainly iterates notions of power/knowledge that is all too common among Foucauldians. In this sense, accepting that nonhuman actors can "enforce" connections physically, perhaps Bruno Latour is accurate when he discusses how "objects too have agency". However, with poor literacy rates in certain parts of the world (e.g. "nearly half of [Detroit's population is] functionally illiterate"), might this approach to reading be harmful for early readers? Or should we think of this wearable technology as something that is more so geared toward 'adult consumption' given its perceived full-body experience?
Works Cited:
Latour, Bruno. 2005. "Objects too have agency" in "Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory", Oxford University Press
Huffington Post. 2011. "Nearly Half of Detroit's Adults Are Functionally Illiterate, Report Finds"