Browsing the Dutch Augmented Reality Landscape: a critical exploration

1. Introduction The Internet smeared out over anything or, as how popular and marketing discourse would describe it, the next best thing. These are the descriptions augmented reality is facing. Augmented reality is an information technology that places digital information onto psychical and public spaces. Various forms of augmented reality, starting with early head-mounted displays, have been around for more than thirty years and derived from the virtual reality movement 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 mobile devices provide us with a far more dynamic relationship with the Internet embedding it in outdoor and everyday activities, bringing with it new expectations regarding access to information. Another development that has added to the experience of augmented reality is the proliferation of augmented reality browser applications. A browser in this case can be perceived as a technology that overlays location-based information onto a cell phone's camera view and enables users to receive additional information about their surroundings. There are several big players in the augmented reality browser business, however this paper focuses on Amsterdam based augmented reality browser Layar. In a late 2010 interview with online publication Directions Magazine cofounder of Layar Claire Boonstra made some provoking statements regarding the future of augmented reality. She stated: (...) we actually see AR as the next mass media and in addition to this: And there are, theoretically, as many layers possible as there are currently websites on the Internet. (Francica, 2010). Her opinion, being a market leader, is thought provoking. It raises the question if augmented reality is really evolving from a cool gimmick on the periphery of graphics and visualization technologies to a central player in 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 working definition of augmented reality and briefly discussing how the concept of augmented reality evolved overtime, (2) discussing in what forms todays augmented reality applications are presented, (3) what expectations regarding augmented reality can be traced in popular discourse and Layars own rhetorics. Second this paper sets out to critically explore the Dutch augmented reality landscape through a case study of the Dutch augmented reality browser Layar. A case study of Layar will be presented in which 621 available layers in the Netherlands have been examined. This will result in a layer taxonomy that provides a categorization and an ordered classification for future reference. The case study of Layar is centered on the two main

expectations that this paper will derive from the popular and industry discourse and it traces these expectations within the Layer-database. 2. Defining Augmented Reality Augmented reality was often used inconsequently along with other terms such as mixed reality or blended reality. These existing concepts all addressed the interconnection between physical and digital spaces. Compatibility between both real and virtual data has always been an important issue in augmented reality (Wang and Dunston, 2006). In 1994 conceptual frameworks started working towards a distinction between different forms of reality. Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino, who both are engineers whose focus is on display and control issues in virtual environments, produced a conceptual framework on reality spaces in their article A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Virtual Displays. Here, Milgram and Kishino, described the merging of real and virtual environments as a form of Mixed Reality (1994). In 1997 writing a survey on the (then) current state of augmented reality Ronald Azuma, now a research leader at Nokia Research Center, defined augmented reality by three characteristics: it combines real and virtual, it is interactive in real time and registered in 3D (366). His characteristics allow other technologies besides head mounted displays while retaining the essential components of augmented reality. Azuma also hinted towards a more mobile functionality for augmented reality writing that augmented reality systems must place a premium on portability, especially the ability to walk around outdoors, 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 virtual environments, created an updated model of his 1994 taxonomy. This version is 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 environment that is physically around us: buildings, trees, houses etcetera. On the right 2

side we see the virtual environment. These are environments that consist of virtual objects: computer simulated graphics, digital texts etcetera. Between those poles two realities are placed: augmented reality and augmented virtuality. In this model the level of mixture defines whether environments are placed under augmented reality or augmented virtuality. This creates the distinction that a simulated world where images of real world environments are added, can be seen as augmented virtuality and a real world environment where virtual elements are added to, can be seen as augmented reality. Milgram and Colquhoun coined the term mixed reality to define situations in which it is not clear whether the primary environment is real or virtual or when there is no predominance of real or virtual elements in the environment. Although this concept does consider connections between physical and digital elements, their definition lacks a notion of mobility that was already stressed by Azuma. This is to some effect based on the fact that devices were lacking mobility; devices back then were big head-mounted or head-up displays with see-through capabilities. For this reason it is useful to take a look at a different approach toward the definition of mixed and augmented realities that was endorsed by Hiroshi Ishii, who is a Professor of Media Arts and Sciences of the Tangible Media Group at the MITs Media Lab. Ishii foresaw desktop computing changing and foresaw two possible applications: onto our skin or bodies and onto the physical environments we inhabit. Whereas the first trend is connected to the definition of wearable computing, the second is related to ubiquitous computing. Ishiis group attempted to bridge the gap between cyberspace and physical environment by making digital information (bits) tangible, focusing on how to bring the immaterial bits of digital spaces into the physical world (233). The approach of the Tangible Bits project takes Milgram and Colquhouns definition one step further by emphasizing the physicality of digital interfaces. Ishii attempted to demonstrate that the interfaces through which we connect to digital spaces do change our perceptions of digital information and reconfigure our perceptions of both physical and digital spaces. But more important to how we know augmented reality nowadays is that Ishii emphasized the relevance of mobility in the blurring of borders between physical and digital spaces by connecting the forms of enhanced reality with wearable computers. This is an important notion that was also emphasized by Lev Manovich, professor of Visual Arts at the University of California, in an article where he introduces his concept of augmented spaces. In this article he describes a cultural shift in the image of the virtual from an immersive virtual world to a psychical world with embedded digital information accessible via mobile media, emphasizing mobility (Manovich, 2002). After examining earlier concepts and definitions we can define flows of digital data into the psychical space and mobility as key characteristics of augmented reality. This leads up to the following definition that this paper will administer. Augmented reality is a technology that lets users add virtual elements (images, information) to a real world environment through a seamless interaction between real and virtual environments and provides users with a tangible interface. It is important to stress that the flowing data between both real and virtual space is compatible and that mobility of devices 3

and therefore users is a crucial element for augmented reality and the blurring of borders between physical and digital space. This paper now examines 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 is not 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 GPSsystem function as augmented reality-hardware. In a collaborative trendrapport presented by telecomprovider Horizon and conducted by The New Media Consortium, a globally focused not-for-profit consortium dedicated to the exploration and use of new media and new technologies, and EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, a community of higher education institutions and organizations committed to advancing learning through information technology innovation, this practice is explained with markers that symbolize digital 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 interpret the devices precise location and the nature of objects in their field of view. The marker is interpreted by software that brings up information in response to physical reference points (Horizon Report, 2011). The software that enables the camera to display digital information attached to psychical markers is distributed in two forms: standalone applications and layers that are part of an augmented reality browser. I will briefly discuss both forms.

3.1 Applications (apps) In Apple, Android and Ovi application stores there are numerous apps that have a specific goal that can be reached with augmented reality. Most apps only serve one specific goal. I will provide two examples. Word Lens (Quest Visual, 2011) is a translation application that helps users translate foreign languages. 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 Word Lens app enabled, the app will overlay the words on the sign with the English translation. Another example is the Urban Augmented Reality (Netherlands Architecture Institute, 2010) application that shows architecture that is no longer or not yet there. Using the camera at specific locations this application shows the buildings that once stood there, that might have stood there, or that will be built there in the future. The Museum of Londen has a similar application called StreetMuseum (Thumbspark Limited, 2010) that uses GPS positioning and geo-tagging to allow users as they travel around the city of London to view information and 3D historical images overlaid on contemporary buildings and sites. 3.2 Augmented reality browser A 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 users to receive additional information about their surroundings. Although there are
4

other augmented reality browsers the leading browsers today are Wikitude and Layar. These browsers contain several small applications that can be activated within the browser. In Wikitude for instance users can activate Wikipedia and scan their surroundings to see if there are any pages on Wikipedia relevant for their location. In Layar users 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 from popular and Layers own rhetorics. This paper focuses on the popular and industry discourses because it is in these discourses that we can distinct explicit (social) expectations regarding augmented reality as an information technology. In order to introduce the focus the case study this paper will now briefly discuss these discourses, but it will first address the academic discourse. The academic discourse on augmented reality seems to have more of a technical nature. Publications on augmented reality are mostly found in the discourse on human-computer interaction (HCI) and are commonly build upon media researcher Steven Johnsons notion that interfaces define our perceptions of the space we inhabit, defining interfaces as communication mediators, representing information between two parts, making them meaningful to one another (Johnson, 1997). Augmented reality is often positioned as a new way of navigating and browsing information and is presented 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 also joining the debate about the potential of augmented reality. Such fields include education (Grasset 2008, Dunleavy et al. 2008), entertainment (Cheok, 2010), surgery (Sanne et. al. 2009,) and urban planning and architecture (Schall et al. 2009). At this point this paper turns its focus on popular discourse in order to trace the case studys focus points. Popular discourse focus is on new ways users can access information with augmented reality. When I speak of popular discourse in this context I refer to new media and technology blogs or websites. Expectations on ways of access are molded in articles on the most slick looking apps for mobile devices that give access to augmented information (Cashmore 2009, Dumas 2009, Elliot 2009, Freeman 2009, Hamburger 2011, Hepburn 2010, Kuang 2009, Parr 2009). These publications focus on how information is presented or accessed and on navigating information in city spaces. The basic underlying idea is that everyone will have a smartphone and therefore everyone can access the web and its information at any time, at any place (Chen 2009, Fleishman 2009, Hubbard 2009, Kirckpatrick 2009, Van Grove 2009). The same visions on augmented reality are also quite clear in the closely related popular marketing discourse. Here publications focus on the possibilities for marketeers to create cool looking advertisement spaces, 5

marketing outlets and create customer information spaces. These visions are molded in texts that show other companies and brands that use augmented reality for marketing purposes (Duncan 2011, Ken 2010, Lake 2010, Smith 2009). Other publications in popular marketing discourse claim augmented reality 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 descriptions regarding access to information that we have already seen in (utopian) web discourse. Again we have an unlimited access to information, only this time we can access information everywhere in physical space. This notion will be one of two focus points in the case study of Layar. The second focus point is derived from industry discourse. Keeping this papers case study in mind, this analysis of industry discourse will focus on the rhetorics Layar uses to describe the opportunities that the Layar product gives users. In the interview, presented in this papers introduction, with Layars co-founder Claire Boonstra she states that augmented reality can be perceived as the next mass medium. Also emphasizing that Layar has the potential to become as big as the web: And there are, theoretically, as many layers possible as there are currently websites on the Internet. She also adds an interesting notion on user participation in this development: And you can add your own layer to your reality (Francica, 2010). This latter notion is a reoccurring element in Layars rhetorics. On the Layar website everyone can access a slide presentation that introduces the Layar developer platform. It is emphasized in this presentation that Layar is an open platform, inviting everyone to join and build Layers (Layar, 2011). Another striking example of this rhetoric is a video that Layar produced to introduce their platform and is also found on the companys website. The first words that are spoken in this video are, again, from Layar co-founder Claire Boonstra: Layar is a platform where everybody can create their own fantastic augmented reality experiences (Layer, 2011). Analyzing Layars communication, their rhetorics focus on user participation. Again we can trace overlap with web discourse. Economic and cultural discourse on web related topics such as web 2.0 and social media have been dominated with buzzwords like collaborative culture and co-creation by manifestos such as Wikinomics (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 them contribute content, tag data and upload all sorts of mediatexts. Augmented reality, again, seems to be chasing the same goal the web did. The notion of user participation will be the second point of focus in the case study. User participation within augmented reality happens on two different levels. I will briefly discuss both levels. One way of enabling user participation is on a developer level. Augmented reality browsers such as Wikitude and Layar provide the opportunity to join their development community. Both browsers 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, 6

providing developers with the tools to either create their own augmented reality applications, or enhance their existing applications with an augmented reality 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 an existing application adding an augmented reality experience. Both browsers also give access to augmented reality experiences that are created with thirdparty tools. There are a number of software applications that allow an easy construction of an augmented reality space. Examples of such tools are buildAR, a tool that provides a way to add own datasets with information to an augmented experience, Poister, a service with a web-based interface for adding a dataset with points of interest to a map which can then be viewed in augmented reality, and VISAR, a content management system that can show 2D and 3D objects based on dataset input. The other level of user participation is within the augmented experience. 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 to participate within the applications, some redirect users to a web-interface where they can upload data. One great example of both levels of participation is a layer called streetARt (MOB, 2011). This layer was created using the Layer Player tool to add an augmented reality experience and also encourages 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 information everywhere and (2) user participation as two key expectations in popular discourse on augmented reality and in Layars rhetorics. This paper now presents an extensive case study on the Dutch augmented reality landscape. This case studys focus is centered on augmented reality browser Layar. For this 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 their website. The database offers a filter option per country so with the help of this tool I was able to easily filter out Layers that are only available in The Netherlands. This resulted in a total of 621 available layers. It is important to stress that this research only conducted layers that were available on June 16th. It is likely that the Layer database grew since then. It is also important to stress that there are actually 632 layers available in The Netherlands. However, some of them do not contain any description on content, category and publisher. For this reason they are not included in this research. Minus these 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 on who published the layer; brands, users, government, companies, and what 7

kind of information they contained. Most layer descriptions provided enough information, but some of them had to be installed in order to grasp what they are about. These results were categorized using spreadsheets. After the process of categorizing was completed, the data provided useful insights on which applications provided branded content and applications that provided information based on other sources such as open data or user generated content. 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 the applications engage in user participation and how many where actually build within an amateur cult? To evaluate this I divided all categorized layers into three categories: no user participation, user participation on a level of contributing 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 related websites. Press releases proved to be really useful for this task. This second process provided me with enough data to put the second focus point of this case study to the test. This research eventually produced an overview of the Dutch augmented reality landscape. The results of this research will be presented in four paragraphs, each with its own focus. First the entire Dutch landscape is presented with a visualization of the conducted taxonomy. This taxonomy will provide a quantitative classification of layers and each category will be described based on their characteristics. Second the nature of available information will be visualized using a Venn diagram. Third this research zooms in on user participation and visualizes and elaborates on how user participation is represented in the Layar-database. Finally this paper will reflect on its findings in this exploration in the Dutch augmented reality landscape. 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 use representational state transfer (REST), a style of software architecture for distributed hypermedia. The World Wide Web uses the same software architecture. Layers are developed and maintained by other parties using the free API. Layar is, much like Apple and his App Store, responsible for their validation 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 below shows a visual representation of the Layer augmented reality landscape and provides a taxonomy. The square size represents the specific percentage of a

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

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

Government applications Government applications make up for 5,5 percent (34 layers) of the total landscape. The Dutch government publishes these applications and in general uses datasets from the open data initiative the Dutch government has started. Examples of such layers are the Politiebureaus (VTS Politie Nederland, 2009) layer that guides users to the nearest police station and the GGD in Nederland (GGD, 2010) that guides users to the nearest public healthcare station. Region/City applications These applications count for 21,4 percent (133 layers) percent of the Dutch augmented reality landscape. The nature of these applications is actually two folded. On the one hand they are useful directories provided by local

governments that display information about a region or a citys history, nature and local specialties. On the other hand they are examples of what can best be described as city marketing; cities that use all kinds of media applications as strategic promotion of a city, with the aim of altering the external perceptions of a city in order to encourage tourism, attract inward migration of residents, or enable business relocation. These applications are informative for users on the one hand but also serve as promotional tools with commercial purposes. Cities or regions are actually presented as brands in these strategies. Examples of such applications are Beleef Dokkum (NOFCOM, 2010) and the Haarlem (City Marketing Haarlem, 2010) layer. Beleef Dokkum shows museums, local monuments, a local shop directory for the city of Dokkum. The Haarlem layer points towards the most popular shops and things to do in the city of Haarlem.

User participation apps User participation is enabled in 21,3 percent (132 layers) of all layers available in the Netherlands. These applications are either created by users or enable user participation; in the latter case the applications are not connected to a specific brand. The category appeals to the two levels of participation this paper has presented earlier and counts for twenty-one percent of the Dutch landscape. This category will be further examined in the forthcoming. Examples for this category are Skatespots (Skatespots, 2010) and Flood (Kimik, 2011). Skatespots allows users to tag their skate spots on a map and share this location with other skaters. Flood is a project by artists Karina Plosi and Kim Dijkstra who created a layer that floods your surroundings with water. Semi-brand applications Semi-brand applications are not connected to a specific brand but contain only commercial content and count for 16,3 percent (101 layers) of the Dutch landscape. Often these applications are directories showing you what shops are around you, what houses are for sale, where you can find a hotel or a restaurant. A general rule for this category is that it provides information with commercial purposes and redirects users to brands, in this case being nearby shops, hotels etcetera. A perfect example of this category is Sales Locator (StyleToday, 2010). This application enables users to scan streets for sales and discounts. But this app only shows information by allied partners, such as H&M, Vero Moda, ONLY and Hunkemuller, redirecting users to brands. The All Hotels (allMarkers, 2010) layer also applies this strategy only showing nearby hotel recommendations from major booking websites. Brand applications 20,3 percent (126 layers) of all layers are connected to brands. These applications are part of a brands marketing strategy and mostly offer information 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) that searches for the nearest ATM and Funda, a real estate agency, offers an
10

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

Other This 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 augmented reality landscape. Examples are the game ARcade (hpsc.fr, 2010) that enables users to play Pacman in public spaces using augmented reality. A project by Dutch artist Thijs Sprangers called Landscape Interrupt (Thijs Zweers, 2011) uses augmented reality to display virtual sculptures onto typical Dutch landscapes. Another example is a project, conducted by the department of Information and Computer Sciences at Utrecht University, called Rooster (Lennart Herlaar, 2010) that shows timetables of which courses are where and at what time in university buildings.
This taxonomy has provided six categories; government applications, region/city applications, user applications, semi-brand applications, brand applications and other applications. In the forthcoming this paper will zoom in on information and user participation 5.3 Production of information As the taxonomy presented in the above shows the information that is displayed in the Dutch public spaces is largely produced by brands. Figure 3 shows how this information is divided in non-branded information and branded information.

11

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 available in the Dutch augmented reality landscape is provided by brands. This can be perceived as a modern version of what has been described by Otto Riewoldt as brandscapes in his book on retail design. Brandscapes are unique spaces brands create for themselves. In the retail design paradigm this reflects on unique psychical in-store experiences to promote and sell goods (Riewoldt, 2002). The augmented experience provided by brands appeal to the same notion. The purple bubble in the model represents the category of Region/City applications. As this paper already argued these applications balance a thin line between branded and non-branded information due to their two-folded nature. For this reason this category is placed on a combined level. If we take this category into a strictly branded account, focusing on their role as part of city marketing and placing it within the domain of branded information, the total of branded information rises to almost fifty-eight percent; meaning that

12

over half of all information in augmented public spaces is produced by brands. The current state of information in Layar appeals to the idea of a static environment. Whether build by users or brands layers display static information from datasets that contain locations of hotels, hotspots, museums and shops. This can be considered as already known information. The majority of layers focuses on directories and seems to just remediate existing information in a new medium. 5.4 Zooming in on user participation As displayed in the taxonomy a little over twenty-one percent (132 layers) of all 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 augmented reality happens on two different levels: (Level 1) on a developer level where anyone can create a augmented reality application or in this case layer, (Level 2) on a level of integrated user participation contributing data of all sorts. An exploration of this category presents how these levels of participation can be traced in the Layar-database.

13

Figure 5: Visual representation on what levels user participation occurs within the Layerdatabase.

As it did before, the small bubble again represents an overlap, this time between the two levels. These apps are developed by users and enable user participation within the application as well. An example of this is Ecocritique (Ecocritique Inc., 2010), an environmental network that allows users to comment on the state of the environment around them. Users generate markers to tag what it is that they have seen by using Ecocritique for iPhone or Ecocritique.com. Users can mark a location, anywhere on the globe, where they have noticed environmental misdeeds or best practices worth noting. Their review of the location then appears on maps on the Ecocritique App and website, using the latest GPS technology. The layer was also build by this environment initiative so participation happens on both levels. Other examples are StreetARt (MOB, 2011) for sharing Streetart pictures and locations, FreeSpace (SpaceLiberation, 2010) for sharing ideas for artistic spaces, Monkey Drop (Just add Monkeys, 2011) for leaving digital monkeys for others to find and MijnVisStek (Marco Ippel, 2010) for tagging and sharing good spots to fish. All these applications allow users to tag digital information 14

onto a psychical object or space either through the application itself or a web interface database and they all share that they are created by individuals. As the model shows user participation is most active on a developer level, accounting for 68,2 percent combining strictly level 1 layers and layers that contain both levels of participation (90 layers). Users can create augmented spaces for others to enjoy or inform themselves, but where users cannot contribute data. Examples of this can be found in layers such as Spanish Revolution (B_cultura, 2011) and YouTube Around (Almera Aumentada, 2010). The Spanish Revolution layer displays Flickr photos that are tagged with #spanishrevolution. This layer was published during the rise of protests by young adults in Spain against the enormous unemployment rates the country is facing. YouTube Around enfolds local events within augmented space. YouTube around is a user-created layer that shows videos uploaded near a users location. The other level of participation is found in 42 layers within Layarsdatabase. These applications do enable users contributing data, either within the app of through a web interface. The layer Album Cover Atlas (The Word Magazine, 2010) points users towards places where photos for legendary album covers were shot. Users can contribute to this database by adding locations in the application or upload album covers in a web interface database. In Message Central 1.2 (DnL Productions Inc., 2010) users can create messages and attach them to a GPS-point within the app. Users can select a position using the camera, type a message and attach it to a location for others to see. 5.5 Browsing Layar The case study of Layar this paper has conducted investigated how the two key expectations derived from popular discourse and Layars own rhetorics can be traced within the Layer-database of available layers in The Netherlands. Regarding information there are two things worth noting. One is that most Layers display static information. This information is collected in existing datasets and displayed as directories within augmented reality. The ability to interact with everything in the world as we see it and get real-time information/interaction out of it is still a big challenge. It seems that the current state of augmented reality is focused on static objects and all things known. The second observation is that information within augmented spaces is mostly produced by brands or brand-related agents. This paper has described these layers as modern versions of brandscapes: unique spaces created by brands. In an earlier study on augmented spaces Professor of Visual Arts Lev Manovich suggested that these spaces exist within an esthetic paradigm and the construction of these spaces can be approached as an architectural task for designers (Manovich, 2002). Now, nine years later, the field of augmented reality in The Netherlands is still part of the same paradigm. The artistic architects Manovich was referring to are in fact the designers 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, 15

perceiving these brandscapes as the corporate websites, advertisement popups and banners we know from the web. In augmented reality these commercial outlets appear to us as branded spaces. The promise of user participation by Layar co-founder Claire Boonstra is 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 toolkits that 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 and interactive information. Further down the line of technological development image recognition and tracking capabilities will evolve and might add more options for real time and interactive display of information. The most prevalent uses of augmented reality so far have been in the consumer sector for things like marketing, social engagement, amusement and location-based information, the fact that user participation is already adopted is the first step in transcending an old paradigm and is contributing to the fact that users can help shape the augmented reality field. Therefore the field does not have to rely on brands alone to take the next step in this technology.

16

6. Conclusion This paper has explored augmented reality as an information technology and provided 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 can be perceived as a technology that enables users to add virtual elements (images, information) to a real world environment through a seamless interaction between real and virtual environments. Today the technology of augmented reality is situated in the cameras in connected mobile devices. The software that enables the camera to display digital information attached to psychical markers is distributed in two forms: standalone applications and layers that are part of an augmented reality browser. This paper has presented unlimited access to information everywhere and user participation as two key expectations in popular discourse on augmented reality and in Layars own rhetorics. These expectations have been put to the test in a case study on the Dutch augmented reality landscape. This case study focuses on augmented reality browser Layar. For this case study all 621 available layers in the Netherlands have been examined. Results have been presented in a visual taxonomy and six categories have been classified; government applications, region/city applications, user applications, semi-brand applications, brand applications and other applications that are often experimental games. Regarding information there are two things worth noting. The current state of information in Layar appeals to the idea of a static environment. Whether build by users or brands layers display static information and remediate existing information in a new medium. Also, over half of the information within augmented spaces is produced by brands or brand-related agents. This paper has described these layers as modern versions of brandscapes: unique spaces created by brands. The promise of user participation by Layar co-founder Claire Boonstra is 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 enable easy creation still on the rise, this is actually a good result. However, inapplication 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 of information and might give a boost to in-application user participation. The current state of the Dutch augmented reality landscape shows that it is largely dominated by use in the consumer sector for things like marketing, social engagement, amusement and location-based information. In the next five years we should see significant advances in augmented reality technology that have their effect on how information within a augmented experience is produced and accessed. However, a shift from gimmick to utility is needed in order to become a central player in the technology landscape.

17

7. Literature Azuma, R.T. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6 (1997): 355385. Cashmore, Pete. "Augmented Reality Twitter is the Coolest Thing Ever." Social Media News and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. N.p., 4 Aug. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://mashable.com/2009/08/04/augmentedreality-twitter/>. 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. <http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/08/augmented-reality/>. Cheok, Adrian. Human Pacman: A Mobile Augmented Reality Entertainment System Based on Physical, Social, and Ubiquitous Computing. Art and Technology of Entertainment Computing and Communication. SpringerVerlag, 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. <http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/12/2262453/how-augmented-realitycan-engage.html>. Dumas, Daniel . "7 Best Augmented Reality Apps | Magazine." Wired.com . N.p., 21 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/st_augmented_reality_apps/>. Duncan. "Volkswagen Virtual Test Drive | The Inspiration Room." The Inspiration Room | Advertising creativity from around the world. N.p., 12 Mar. 2011. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2011/volkswagen-virtual-test-drive/>. Dunleavy, M. et al. Affordances and limitations of immersive participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18. (2008). Elliot, Amy-Mae. "10 Amazing Augmented Reality iPhone Apps." Social Media News and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. N.p., 26 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://mashable.com/2009/12/05/augmentedreality-iphone/>. Ewen, Sam . "Why Augmented Reality Is Poised To Change Marketing." Social Media News and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. N.p., 8 June 2011. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://mashable.com/2011/06/08/augmentedreality-marketing-2/>.

18

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. < http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,173778/printable.html> Francica, Joe. "Augmented Reality: A New Mass Media? - All Points Blog." All Points Blog: Our Opinion, Your Views of All Things Location. N.p., 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 2 June 2011. <http://apb.directionsmag.com/entry/augmentedreality-a-new-mass-media/155913>. Freeman, Dave. " Bionic Eye app creates augmented reality on your iPhone 3GS ."MobileCrunch . N.p., 23 Sept. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/09/23/bionic-eye-app-allows-you-tosee-augmented-reality/> Grasset, R., Dunser, A., & Billinghurst, M. Edutainment with a mixed reality book: A visually augmented illustrative childrens' book. International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. 2008. Hamburger, Ellis. "Best Augmented Reality Apps For iPhone and iOS." Business Insider. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.businessinsider.com/best-augmented-reality-apps-for-iphoneand-ios-2011-3#now-that-youve-learned-about-our-favorite-augmentedreality-apps-11>. Hayes, Gary. "16 Top Augmented Reality Business Models | PERSONALIZE MEDIA." Personalizemedia. N.p., 20 Sept. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.personalizemedia.com/16-top-augmented-reality-businessmodels/>. Hepburn, Aden. " Top 10 Augmented Reality Examples | Digital Buzz Blog."Digital Buzz Blog | Digital Campaigns, Online Marketing, Social & More.. N.p., 9 Mar. 2010. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/top10-augmented-reality-examples/>. Hubbard, Sid Gabriel. " Augmented Reality: A Human Interface for Ambient Intelligence ." ReadWriteWeb - Web Apps, Web Technology Trends, Social Networking and Social Media . N.p., 12 Aug. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/augmented_reality_human_interfac e_for_ambient_intelligence.php> Ishii, H. Tangible bits: Coupling physicality and virtuality through tangible user interfaces. In Y. Ohta & H. Tamura (Eds.), Mixed reality: Merging real and virtual 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.

19

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. <http://www.messaliberty.com/2010/07/5-augmented-reality-examples/>. Kirckpatrick, Marshall. " Augmented Reality: 5 Barriers to a Web That's Everywhere ."ReadWriteWeb - Web Apps, Web Technology Trends, Social Networking and Social Media . N.p., 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. < http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/augmented_reality_five_barriers_to_ a_web_thats_eve.php> Kuang, Cliff. "Five To-Die-For Augmented Reality Shopping Apps." Fast Company. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 June 2011. <www.fastcompany.com/blog/cliffkuang/design-innovation/shopping-augmented-reality>. Lake, Chris. "Augmented reality: 10 real world examples from the superbrands | Econsultancy." Econsultancy | Become a smarter digital marketer. N.p., 20 May 2010. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://econsultancy.com/uk/blog/5944-augmented-reality-10-real-worldexamples-from-the-superbrands>. 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: Profile Books Ltd, 2008. Manovich, L. "The Poetics of Augmented Space." Visual Communication 5.2 (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 display integration. In Y. Ohta & H. Tamura (Eds.), Mixed reality: Merging real and virtual worlds. New York: Springer. (1999): 5-28. Parr, Ben . "Top 6 Augmented Reality Mobile Apps [Videos]."Social Media News and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. N.p., 19 Aug. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://mashable.com/2009/08/19/augmentedreality-apps/>. Portals, C. et. al. Augmented reality and photogrammetry: A synergy to visualize physical and virtual city environments. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (65) 1. (2010):134-142 20

Reitmayr, G, and D. Schmalstieg. Collaborative Augmented Reality for Outdoor Navigation and Information Browsing. Symposium on Location Based 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 augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic surgery?."SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY. New York: Springer. (2009):1693-1700. Schall et. al. Handheld Augmented Reality for underground infrastructure visualization. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Volume 13 Issue 4, May 2009. Smith, Alex. "Augmented reality: top ten campaigns (so far) - Brand Republic News."Advertising, media, marketing and PR news & jobs - Brand Republic. N.p., 16 June 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletin/digitalpmbulletin/article/913358/Aug mented-reality-top-ten-campaigns-so-far/?DCMP=EMC-Media-PM-Bulletin>. Tapscott, Don, and Anthony D. Williams. Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio, 2006. The New Media Consortium, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. "Two to Three Years: Augmented Reality 2011 Horizon Report." 2011 HORIZON REPORT. N.p., 8 Feb. 2011. Web. 12 June 2011. <http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2011/sections/augmented-reality/>. Van Grove, Jennifer. "Augmented Reality Devices: See the Online World While Walking the Real One." Social Media News and Web Tips Mashable The Social Media Guide. N.p., 6 Jan. 2009. Web. 28 June 2011. <http://mashable.com/2009/01/06/augmented-reality-devices/>. Wang, X., Dunston, P.S. Compatibility issues in Augmented Reality systems for AEC: An experimental prototype study. Automation in Construction 15 (2006): 314326.

21