Talk:Wearable computer

So, this is my first article. I'm somewhat new to publishing stuff in wiki's so I might need a bit help here.

I use Steve Mann's definition of wearable computers, because he is one of the most important people in the scene. I modified it a bit here and there, to make it a bit more readable by changing some words and updating it a bit to our time, as the definition was published in -98.

Am I doing this the right way? It's mostly taken from http://wearcam.org/wearcompdef.html which I'll add as a source as soon as I know how to. Is it right to use that definition like this and modifying it a bit? Also, as it's taken partly from his keynote, it's probably copyrighted, but it's ok to use something that short? Olli Juhani Markkanen 21:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Differentiation from other computing

These are early morning comments after insufficient coffee, but how would you distinguish wearable computers from internal, biologically linked computers such as my cardiac pacemaker, or from an external-to-the-user ubiquitous computing model where the computing is not worn, but seems to be trying to produce a similar customized user experience? I don't think I've put it up on CZ, but I will look for some commentary I wrote on ubiquitous computing versus virtual reality; this is a complement and extension to that.

Do you differentiate this from personal area network?

Good start! --Howard C. Berkowitz 14:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, didn't notice at all there was a response here. Those things you talk are more ubiquitous computing than wearable computing, and I think they belong to there. A wearable computer, by the definition of Steve Mann that I mostly used, is really a computer like the public know them. They also can - even if they allow so much more - be used as the primary task, like when you are just sitting in park and doing some heavy guerillacoding without anyone else ever knowing. Those pacemakers and cellphones and shirts with some fancy drumsets, are ubiquitous computers, and they are not really computers in the sense the public thinks. You couldn't write a spreadsheet with a wifi-shirt, but you could do that with a cellphone, which is not a wearable computer for the reasons I stated in the article. Was I clear enough? :)

Steve Mann used, and afaik may even have coined the term personal area network. He hardwired some wires in his clothes for that. Nowadays wearable users just use bluetooth for the same purpose. Here I'll give you a quote and the source.

"He introduces the concept of a Personal Area Network (PAN) to connect parts of a body. PAN provides a means to get rid of the wires in a wearable computer. It merges the logical and physical components. This works on the same principle of breaking the spectrum into cells except that PAN shrinks the cells down to one body to transmit data through the body." http://www.johnsaunders.com/papers/wearable.htm

And to actually answer the question, yes, PAN is different than a wearable computer, as it's often a part of it and the solution for messy wires.

Thanks! Olli Juhani Markkanen 01:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I started personal area network; you might want to look at locality of networks for context. My first notes dealt with wireless connectivity, and I see there are a number of wired approaches to be built into clothing. --Howard C. Berkowitz 02:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw the article and liked it. Maybe this note should be in pan talk page, but I didn't find Mann's wires integrated in clothing pan, but you might be interested in this skin based version I once read about. It's called the Body Bus. http://panuganty.tripod.com/articles/softwear.htm Olli Juhani Markkanen 02:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)