122

Chapter 7
Wearable Technologies in
Academic Information Search
Robert Gibson
Emporia State University, USA

ABSTRACT
Wearable technologies and appliances are making inroads into a variety of consumer and commercial
applications, including leisure and entertainment, health care, and gaming. A natural evolution of
the technology is in academe where faculty and students have begun exploring the possibilities of the
technology in a variety of settings, most visibly in libraries where the process of seeking information
using such devices holds significant promise. This chapter provides an inventory of the state of wear-
able technology, its challenges, its possibilities, and how it might be used in academe, including a study
regarding the ability to access common library indexes using two wearable appliances: Google Glass
and a smart watch.

…wearable technology is not limited to just the wrist. There’s a whole lot more. The whole sensor field
is going to explode. It’s a little all over the place right now. With the arc of time, it will become clearer.

- Tim Cook, Apple CEO

INTRODUCTION

As wearable technologies become more commonplace in society, the capabilities of the devices is likely
to improve. While generally limited to basic utility, including checking email, calendaring, messaging,
checking weather conditions, etc., the functionality of these devices is expected to drastically improve in
the near future. Already we’ve seen the potential of wearable technology with the now ill-fated introduc-
tion of Google Glass Explorer which was introduced without a clear market segmentation – a hallmark
of many Google product launches. However, it’s within reason to expect these devices to have many

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0069-8.ch007

Copyright © 2016, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

of the same capabilities and characteristics as Glass and other mobile technologies – including built in
video, access to search engines, etc. Wearable technologies will also become more discreet. The form
factor will likely be smaller and less obtrusive than glasses and headgear when worn – sometimes directly
embedded into jewelry, clothing, and other fashion. The use of these discreet devices will range from
recreation to fitness to travel to health care. Some health screening prototypes are being developed that
take the form of pills and other investigable components. Other systems will be permanently implanted
chips that provide real-time sensory feedback no matter the environmental context. Still others are being
developed that can be used in conjunction with mass transit systems.
This chapter explores the current state of wearable technologies, where it’s being used, and how aca-
demia might be able to leverage the technology in the context of information search – a common activity
conducted by both students and faculty. An analysis of common library search engines is provided in
the context of using wearable technology. It’s safe to say that the technology is not yet mature enough to
be used effectively in most common information search processes. The indexes themselves have not yet
built out their infrastructure to support these types of devices – likely because there isn’t yet a critical
user mass. However, there is considerable promise. Whereas current search processes are relatively two
dimensional in nature, future wearable devices will likely provide information search to be conducted
in a third dimension using embedded RFDI sensors within the library that provide the researcher related
resources, author biographical information, and even media that supports the query.

BACKGROUND

Wearable technologies are broadly defined as unobtrusive, miniaturized sensors attached directly to the
body or garments. These sensors can even be embedded directly into the fabric of garments (Bonato,
2005). In recent years wearable technologies have become part of the larger ontology called The Internet
of Things (IoT) which is broadly defined as a world of connected devices, objects, vehicles, machines,
consumer durables, clothing, and other components all hooked to a network (Kranenburg, Anzelmo,
Caprio & Dodson, 2011).
Increasingly, more people are acquiring and using wearable technologies and appliances; however
exact adoption metrics remain elusive given its relatively recent introduction into the consumer market.
In fact, EDUCAUSE (2013) still considers wearable technology “experimental”. Perhaps the best evi-
dence regarding adoption metrics are provided by Mary Meeker from Columbia University who provides
a macro snapshot of growth rates as of 2013 (Figure 1). Cisco, Inc. forecasts there will be more than
50 billion such devices connected to the Internet in just five years (Evans, 2011). ABI Research has
indicated the wearable computing device market will grow to an astounding 485 million annual device
shipments by 2018 (OPC, 2014). Forbes magazine projects by 2017 the revenue from these devices will
exceed $20B (Sabhlok, 2013) making this a very lucrative growth market.
As wearable devices become more commonplace within the framework of the Internet of Things, their
use in a variety of academic disciplines will likely begin to challenge traditional instructional technologies
and methods of research. In particular, ready access to information - a hallmark of academe - will likely
be influenced, if not fundamentally shaped using these types of devices and appliances. This shift may
also influence libraries and other traditional curators of information. The ability to instantly gain access
to information based on geo-positioning, voice-activated commands, body/Radio Frequency Data Identi-

123
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

Figure 1. The internet of things growth trajectory (Columbia Business School, 2015)

fier (RFDI) sensors, tactile input, gestures, heads-up displays, and other discretely transportable input/
output sensors allow users to access a variety of academic resources in locations never before considered.
Although most academic databases and other information repositories are commonly available
online, and although mobile technologies capable of accessing those resources are nearly ubiquitous,
imagine an ecological field trip where students can conduct research activities using devices and sen-
sors attached to their person. These “always on” devices and sensors can instantly access resources and
information in any number of situational locations. Wind, humidity, temperature, barometric pressure,
precipitation, and other atmospheric conditions can be captured and exchanged with cloud based stor-
age systems in a continuous state. Smart phones, while arguably powerful, are generally not well-suited
for all types of environmental elements and are generally not suited to capturing data in a continuous,
always-on state. Certain wearable technologies, on the other hand, can easily be used underwater, in
extreme weather, and in other conditions beyond that of traditional mobile media. One company, for
example, has designed and developed a wearable technology used by swimmers to measure how they
move through water (sporttechie.com, 2014). Still other wearable technologies are being introduced in
health care environments where handling and operating traditional handheld devices can lead to the
spread of bacteria (Luckowitz, 2014).
Aside from the momentum in consumer and commercial market applications, most wearable tech-
nologies and appliances are deeply rooted in academic research laboratories. Somewhere beyond the
flashy storefronts and tech blogs, early prototypes were borne in labs and testing facilities of leading
technology research labs and university testing facilities. In fact, one of the first digital touch prototypes
was developed by a Japanese academic researcher years before Apple introduced the iPhone (Wagstaff,
2015). Surprisingly, some of the earliest mobile and wearable prototypes actually appeared in the 1980s
– long before today’s browsers and commonplace Internet access (Racoma, 2013).

124

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

What distinguishes wearable technologies and appliances from other forms of mobile, wireless, and
handheld technology is its relative discreetness, portability, and functionality. These technologies are
often difficult to detect when worn by an individual. Wearable technologies also allow the user to interact
with the Internet using input methods not necessarily requiring the user to hold or tactilely control the
device - which might be beneficial in certain circumstances. An archeologist or geologist, for example,
might be able to use wearable technologies while at an excavation site to retrieve data samples. The
conditions of dirt, wind, rain, and heat may not lend themselves to using a smart phone or laptop in the
field, but a lens or heads-up based technology built directly into specialized apparel or headwear might
be employed to access research resources using voice, head control, or gesture-based commands. An-
other distinguishing characteristic is the reduced time between the user’s intention to perform a research
task and the ability of the device to retrieve the desired information. A common Internet search using a
wearable device, for example might take a user a second or two to formulate a conditional search string,
while simultaneously performing another task. Wired magazine refers to these as microinteractions
(Starner, 2013).
While not necessarily research-oriented, some commercial companies are introducing wearable tech-
nologies such as ski goggles with built-in Internet-based displays. These always-on displays can provide
information on everything from snow conditions, to the skier’s location on the mountain or slope, to
speed and elevation - all available through a built-in display embedded directly inside the lens (Wasik,
2013). This type of technology provides hands-free access to real-time data. Future uses for lens-based
technologies may appear in any number of occupational or recreational devices.
Gamers and game-makers are also getting into the wearable act. Researchers Christiaan Ribbens and
Patrick Kersten (2015) developed a prototypical persuasive game called Spooky that wraps the players
into a digital environment where their physical person becomes a game participant. Using specially
designed clothing with embedded sensors, players can embark on a series of paranormal adventures.
A more utilitarian application of wearables can be realized in the field of disability services and
support. Starner (1998) demonstrated that wearable and desk-based video can be used to help recognize
sentence-level continuous American Sign Language with a rather astonishing 98% degree of accuracy.
In this study, the wearable camera was able to decipher sign language into digital speech and speech
recognition systems. Other research into wearable technology in the area of disability services has
resulted in some remarkable findings. For example, Ehrenkranz (2014) found that paraplegic and quad-
riplegic patients, and patients with severe forms of muscular dystrophy were able to effectively engage in
Internet-based activities using wearable technologies. The patients were able to use head (nodding) and
eye motions (blinking), and voice activation to control the device without the use of their hands, arms,
or fingers. Given that 15% of the world’s population identifies as having a physical disability, this is a
significant and important development. Even patients suffering from the effects of Parkinson’s Disease
were able to effectively leverage the technology.
Through a Google, Inc. grant, a New York based dance instructor named David Leventhal commis-
sioned an app called Moving Through Glass that assisted Parkinson’s suffers by providing a series of
lens-based extension exercises. These exercises were rooted in ballet and modern dance movements and
are common to dancers who work themselves through a series of progressive warmup steps and rou-
tines. Patients wearing the technology are exposed to a variety of warm-ups, balance routines, walking
routines, and other systematic steps that provide visual assistance to Parkinson’s sufferers (CNN, 2015).
Seemingly futuristic at the time it was launched in 2013, Google Glass provided a glimpse as to the
possibilities of wearable lens technology. While Glass is no longer manufactured as of this writing, its

125
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

intriguing potential was that the wearable technology can ‘be there when you need it, and gone when
you don’t need it.’ The ultimate desire of wearable technology is it actually helps ‘get technology out
of the user’s way’ (Starner, 2013). Glass provided ready access to the Internet, apps, web conferencing,
and other utilities through a glass projection lens. A particularly fascinating use of Glass was demon-
strated by Andrew Vanden Heuvel, a virtual high school physics teacher and community college faculty
member, who wore his Google Glass while touring the CERN laboratory in Switzerland. Using wearable
technology, he was able to host a live webinar with his students who were located in the United States
while he rode a bicycle through the corridors of the research facility and demonstrated the nuclear super
collider in real time (Scott, 2013).
To encourage broader adoption of wearable technologies, the challenge ahead will be to find market
differentiation from smart phones and other traditional mobile technologies. What would entice some-
one to purchase and utilize wearable technologies when they may already own a smart phone, tablet,
or other handheld/mobile product? In the general commercial market the differentiating factor may be
fashion. An Internet-aware device disguised as a bracelet or ring may provide both form and function.
In fact, these fashionable devices can be quite powerful. Smart rings, for example, provide gesture-based
commands controlling smart phone applications, check email, and even pre-loaded with money to pay
for mass transit fares. The user simply holds the ring up to a fare sensor to tabulate the transaction fee
(Gonzalez, 2014). The latest smart watches also provide telephony capabilities. A user does not neces-
sarily need to carry a phone at all in order to make a call. Fitness bands provide access with health and
wellness data, including steps, heart rate, speed, etc. using a relatively discreet wrist band. Sensors are
becoming extremely small and discreet; in fact, they will be included in all manner of consumer prod-
ucts – even household appliances.
Already, researchers are considering the future of embedded sensors; that is, microprocessors surgi-
cally implanted under the skin or directly into the cornea, or ingested in the form of a pill (Figure 2).
These types of technologies would be able to transmit patient data to a health care provider in real time
for remote patient monitoring (Niewolny, 2013). Microsoft, for example, has partnered with the Uni-
versity of Washington to create a type of wearable contact lens that can serve as a prosthetic device for
sight-impaired individuals. The lens will be able to monitor glucose levels in the body and transmit that
information back to the patient’s health care provider (Woda, n. d.)

Figure 2. Ingestible wearable technology of the future (Quora, 2014)

126

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

From gaming, to health care, to leisure and recreation, to biometrics, to academia, wearable appli-
ances are making several inroads. As with any new technology, applications and utilities often follow
the product introduction. What might be initially intended as a leisure or entertainment-based product
often is later found to be quite effective for other activities, including academe or health care. This
chapter will consider the use of wearable appliances in academic information seeking and inter-library
functions. This survey includes the current state of the technology, innovative uses, and the future of
wearables in academic libraries.

Characteristics of Wearable Technology

Wearables share certain characteristics distinguishing them from traditional handheld mobile media and
other forms of portable technology. As illustrated in Figure 3, wearables are typically voice and/or gesture
controlled, are always on, are typically connected to the Internet at all times, and are environmentally
aware. That is, they can be used for geo-positioning and geo-spatial awareness. These unique features
provide users with the ability to easily and unobtrusively access the Internet from nearly any location.
As we’ll explore later, there can be unintended consequences from wearing a device accessing data in
a continuous state.
One might argue smart phones share many of the same characteristics. The primary difference be-
ing that wearable technologies and appliances are typically less obtrusive and distracting than a phone,
tablet, glasses, or a small form factor computer. Hence, the technology is normally difficult to detect.
Researchers at MIT’s Media Lab (1997) provided a brief overview of wearable technology years before
the term became commonplace. According to the MIT researchers, the following characteristics separate
wearables from smart phones, smart watches and the like; although the lines are beginning to blur as the
technologies begin to include similar functionality:

Figure 3. Characteristics of wearable technology (Columbia Business School, 2015)

127
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

1. Portable While Operational: Meaning, of course, the technology is functional and operational
in a variety of transportation modes.
2. Hands-Free Operation: Keyboards, screen gestures, tactile input, etc. are normally required for
most mobile technologies. However, wearable technologies can be operated realtively hands-free.
3. Embedded Sensors: The sensors can provide spatial-recognition data, microphones and video,
and other forms of real-time information input-output.
4. Immediate, Unobtrusive Access: Wearable technologies should be able to convey information and
communications immediately and in nearly any condition. Email, for example, might be readily
accessible using a wearable device – as opposed to opening an email client on a computer.
5. Always On: Wearable technology is not normally something that is turned on/off or requires the
users to access a secondary device.

Wearable technologies are exemplified by being much more sophisticated than traditional handheld
mobile technology. As indicated earlier, this technology can provide sensory and scanning features not
typcially a characteristic of smart phones. This provides biofeedback and real-time tracking of physi-
ological functions (Wearable Devices, 2014).
Researchers also envision a variety of wearable technology that can be worn on or embedded into the
body. For example, head-based technology can be used to record brain activity; microscopic technology
can be embedded into such things as contact lens’ and fashion eyewear; apparel-based technology can
be used for health monitoring; bio-monitoring devices can track vital signs and other diagnostics can be
surgically implanted; wristbands can provide data regarding bodily functions; foot or ankle bands can
provide power, speed, and motion data; and aural sensors can provide data via implanted earbuds. It’s
foreseeable that users will wear multiple appliances simultaneously – each with a different characteristic
and each used for transmitting or collecting different types of information.

Challenges of Wearable Technology

In order to support this new generation of wearable devices, a completely new wireless transmission
standard called Wi-Bo (wireless body) has been proposed specifically for the anticipated growth of wear-
able technologies and appliances (Pultarova, 2015). Conceivably people will need to support multiple
connected devices at the physical layer. The problem arises in how all these devices will be supported on
a single network, or if those devices will even interconnect with traditional wireless networks. Whereas,
Wi-Fi can be used to interconnect a variety of traditional devices over short range, Wi-Bo would in-
stead use a new standard used to interconnect devices that are either mounted on or embedded into the
body (Figure 4). Wi-Bo would not interfere with a user’s traditional Wi-Fi network if used in the same
proximity (Sheehy, 2015). Hence, a user could potentially use a variety of wireless devices without the
problem of saturating a single network or taxing the available bandwidth.
A bigger challenge for wearable technology industry will not be the connectivity constraints, but
rather the privacy and copyright issues surrounding their use. Transmitting or collecting information
from a variety of sources can lead to serious privacy and data control issues. Unlike smart phones and
other forms of mobile technologies that typically control access to resources and utilize encrypted pass-
words, wearable technologies might be in a continuous state of information transmission and collection.
As it relates to academe, for example, how will a library control who has access to its data without any
sort of authentication? Would those resources be available to anyone who is using a wearable technol-

128

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

Figure 4. Proposed wireless standard – Wi-Bo (Gartner Research, 2014)

ogy? Keep in mind libraries typically contract with data providers by headcount for many of its indexes
and academic journal subscriptions. Should information be available from any type of wearable device
and for any patron? What are the consequences of transmitting the user’s profile data back to a storage
warehouse in order to collect user profile information? These are only some of the questions beginning
to emerge as these devices appear in the commercial market.
These same concerns are magnified in health care. Will data security be controllable in the health care
spectrum where stringent laws govern the transmission and collection of patient health care information?
Will transmission of vital health care data be secure? Wearables expose a world of possible privacy and

129
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

data security concerns, including surveillance, privacy, data control, and access. Already, research is
underway to combine data generated by sensors within the current generation of smart phones so as to
identify and authenticate individuals on a network (OPC, 2014).
Finally, product fallout is also a concern. Forrester Research’s J.P. Gownder (CNN, 2014) indicates
that between 80% and 90% of wearable technologies will likely fail within two years following product
launch. This is primarily because the appliance is unusable, bulky, and has an unattractive form factor;
there is no clear or identifiable advantage over other forms of mobile technology; the social stigma is
still high; the technology is still reserved for the early adopters and hasn’t yet reached mass appeal; the
device has high power consumption and short battery life; and the technology is still at a price point
beyond most consumers. Google’s abandonment of the Glass technology is a case study in consumer
market failure discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Wearable Technologies and the Information Search Process

As search technologies have migrated from passive devices, such as laptops and Personal Digital Assistants,
to small form factor mobile devices, and soon to wearables devices and appliances, several challenges
emerge. Not all of these challenges involve the mechanics, size, security, or efficiency of the device, but
rather how to collect, manage, curate, sort, rank, qualify, and decipher information. Consider a wearable
device in the context of an academic library where a variety of information related to a topic might be
emerge in the process of conducting a search. How the information seeker manages and organizes this
content becomes an added challenge. The American Library Association indicates “one of the potential
challenges for a growing Internet of Things is the variety of data collection and reporting methods used.
Without standards for this data’s collection and transmission, the benefits of the Internet of Things may
not be as fully or easily realized” (ALA, 2015).
The size and discreetness of the appliance is not necessarily a characteristic in assisting to locate
information easier than traditional media – nor assist the information seeker in locating quality infor-
mation. Rather, a wearable appliance might help the information seeker by both sending and receiving
information relative to a query. For example, a sensor collecting and storing queries or providing pre-
dictive search algorithms and analytics might provide the information seeker feedback along more than
one dimension. Body worn appliances, like smart watches or activity trackers, will become particularly
important as they will allow individuals to not only monitor and track research activities, but also provide
data to other objects using the results to improve user experiences (temperature, acoustic, and lighting
adjustments, for example) or to control other devices and physical spaces, such as unlocking doors and
accessing archival information (ALA, 2015).
For an academic information seeker the distinguishing characteristic would likely be function over
form. The wearable device needs to satisfy the requirements of providing research and information
retrieval functionality that is different, if not better than other forms of information search. What type
of functionality might an information seeker be interested in using? Clearly, being able to easily access
library indexes and data warehouses using a wearable appliance would be important; the speed of infor-
mation access; the ability to quickly compose complex queries; the ability to access data in a variety of
conditions and constraints, and perhaps the accuracy and relevancy of the search results. The discrete
characteristics of wearable technology might not afford any particular advantage to an information
seeker. Rather, the ability to access information using a technology activated in unique, unanticipated,
or unorthodox conditions would provide utility over other types of mobile technology.

130

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

Forrester Research, a leading technology think tank, recently asked potential wearable technology
consumers the question “….would you be interested in wearing/using a sensor device, assuming it was
from a brand you trust, offering a service that interests you?” The results of that research indicated the
majority of individuals surveyed prefer a watch or wrist-based technology (42%), followed by technology
that is clipped onto clothing (35%), and earbuds or headphone (21%). Glasses and glass-based wearable
technology, ironically, ranked relatively low (18%) (Figure 5). According to this study, glass or head
wear is not as appealing to consumers as technology developers once envisioned. It might be that the

Figure 5. Popularity of various wearable devices on the body (Forrester Research, 2014)

131
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

entire Google Glass technology was still a bit ahead of its time. Perhaps the key will be designing the
technology to be less obtrusive, more practical, and offering functionality not available in other portable
technologies.
Regarding how information seekers locate academic resources using mobile technologies, voice-based
search still appears to be one of the most commonly used input methods for accessing information from
libraries and data warehouses. Three of the leading voice-based search engines are, of course, Apple’s
Siri technology, Google Search, and Microsoft’s new Cortana. The promise of these technologies is not
simply for conducting one-dimensional search queries, but for the technology to actually include predic-
tive algorithms aiding the information searcher to locate a variety of content. For example, a wearable
device might allow the researcher to locate interconnected information tangential to the original search.
Think of this as a triangulated search query (Alford, 2015). A query for a particular medical condition
might yield interconnected resources and research results referenced within the search target. Or, videos,
audio files, and other media content that supports and enhances the reference.
Although still relatively new – and primarily available with smart watches – haptic input/output
is another, albeit less sophisticated type of information feedback system. Haptic technologies provide
kinesthetic feedback in the form of micro-vibrations. For example, a smart watch wearer can easily
discern a phone call from an email from a text message simply through the type of haptic vibration.
Haptic technology is already embedded into video gaming technology. The next frontier appears to be
integrating haptics into wearable appliances. In fact, Google incorporated a haptic sensor into its Glass
technology transmitting audio through a bone located above the wearer’s ear and into the ear canal.
Apple uses haptics in its watch to provide turn-by-turn directions, whereas researchers are considering
the technology in such things are auto steering wheels and public maps for more natural interactions
(Moss, n. d.). It is foreseeable that haptic enabled appliances might also be used in the information search
process. Consider a device transmitting micro-vibrations to guide users in locating library resources.
An emerging, if not interesting characteristic of information search in academic libraries now involves
gaming and game-based activities. The Association of College and Research Libraries has found that
gamification is very effective in higher education as a way to promote collections, and engage and motivate
students to learn more about the library’s services and resources (Kim, 2015). Multiple academic librar-
ies have developed mobile-based games, such as the University of Huddersfiled’s Lemontree allowing
patrons to earn points and digital badges based on their reengagement with library resources (Broussard,
2011). It is possible the game-based metaphor can extend to wearable technologies as well. Consider
patrons engaging with library services using a wearable appliance, such as goggles, an auditory search
system, or a haptic system while they earn points or badges toward specific outcomes. This might be in
the form of augmented reality, web quests, or other interactive information searches.

Glass and Head-Based Wearables

Google’s Glass, perhaps the most lauded technology in the wearable spectrum to date, was a recent entrant
into the consumer market. Conceived in 2009, Glass was the brainchild of Stanford researchers Sebas-
tian Thrun, Astro Teller, and Babak Parviz (who is with Amazon as of this writing). These researchers
were at the forefront of wearable technology several years earlier, along with fellow researcher Isabelle
Olsson who designed several of the early, albeit crude apparatus prototypes (Bilton, 2015). Sponsored
under Google’s secretive “X Project”, the earliest technology was developed in 2012 and made generally
available to consumers in 2014 under the heralded “Google Explorer Program” which made Glass tech-

132

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

nology available to consumers based on selected research applications. Early Glass prototypes included
everything from a scuba mask to industrial glasses (Figure 6). Eventually, the technology was refined
and reduced in size, but remained painfully obvious when worn in the general public.
Users interacted with the technology using a series of swiping motions – up, down, forward, back-
ward - that progressed through a series on-screen “cards” that appeared inside a small lens located
on the right side of the frame. A microphone allowed voice-activated commands, such as “Ok Glass”
followed by a basic voice command, such as “take a photo.” Audio was available through an ear-based
haptic system that was engineered directly into the temple and earpiece of the frame. Basic functional-
ity included capturing photos, videos, conducting a search, browsing maps, and browsing web sites via
crude on-screen browser. Secondary applications can be downloaded and installed using a phone-based
application called “My Glass”, or side-loaded through a direct USB connection to a computer. Applica-
tions for Glass were specifically designed for the appliance.
The rather sudden demise of the technology has been linked to a variety of corporate missteps and
rollout blunders. Although it held significant promise, the recording capabilities raised concerns regard-
ing privacy and personal information sharing. It should be noted these recording concerns, which will
eventually be even more discrete and un-detectable with future appliances, has not abated. Bars, theaters,
casinos and other public venues generally banned the devices altogether given its potential to record
people and events surreptitiously. Additionally, it simply wasn’t a well-conceived technology. Without
a clear understanding of how Glass might be used beyond a novelty, there was very little compelling
customers to pay a rather hefty $1,600 for a pair of glasses with a video overlay. It was also prone to
short battery life and a bit temperamental. For example, the technology would often crash when certain
apps were launched, modified, or side-loaded. The lens optics was also very limiting. For example the
field of view is a mere 55 degrees horizontally and 43 degrees vertically, making the technology very
restrictive for sensitive applications. As a result, researchers Barbara Chapparro and Jibo He from Wichita
State University developed a lens application retrofitted to Glass to increase the field of vision to 110

Figure 6. Early Google Glass Prototype (Mashable, 2014)

133
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

degrees and 58 degrees respectively, providing more adaptability in medical and information retrieval
applications (Rusco, 2015).
Another serious flaw in the technology was it was still too obvious when worn. Even though the
technology had been reduced in size and complexity through multiple prototype iterations, it was still
quite apparent when someone was wearing them, leading to a host of privacy concerns. Indeed, the
designer Olsson herself believes the future of wearable technology is in smaller, less detectable form
factors (Davies, 2014).
Arguably, Google’s mistake was releasing the technology too soon – well before it had been thoroughly
tested. A Google executive admitted the Glass consumers saw and purchased was not the final product,
but rather an early prototype. Without a clear vision for the technology and somewhat flawed hardware,
it was doomed. There was also the issue of “glassholes” – the unending haranguing experienced by
some users who wore the technology in public. As it turned out, social stigma was much harsher than
Google researchers anticipated. However, the technology behind Glass still remains relevant and will
likely resurface again in an improved wearable form factor (Metz, 2014).

Applications for Glass Technologies in Information Search

The New Media Center (NMC) in conjunction with the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI), which
together produces the annual Horizon Report – Library Edition, posed the following question to read-
ers: How might wearable technology be relevant to academic and research libraries? Several readers
provided a variety of interesting ideas and projects that are germinating in academic libraries. The Cla-
remont Colleges Library (CCL) in Claremont, California, for example, was an early adopter of Glass
technology. Their staff began the implementation by conducting a series of demonstrations among
faculty, staff, and students. Users were then invited to submit proposals for how they intended to use the
devices in support of their academic pursuits. Everything from mathematics application development,
to environmental fieldwork, to tutoring, to language learning and academic productivity were among
some of the proposals submitted (Booth & Brecher, 2015). According to the researchers, response to the
device was extremely favorable. The biggest issue, they noted, was a disparity between the availability
of the devices and the high user demand.
The New Media Center indicated in its most recent 2014 Horizon Report that the Internet of Things
will make a substantial impact in academic libraries within the next 5 years (NMC, 2014). Futurists
envision a plethora of research activities conducted in academic libraries using wearable devices, includ-
ing the ability to control the physical surroundings, provide information regarding current and previous
searches, and promote content in real time. Some of this is already being conducted in museums where
room conditions are tracked in real time using a series of internet-connected devices.
Librarians envision databases and indexes being made widely available to users by way of the Inter-
net of Things. Using a wearable device, library patrons may be able to download directions, maps, and
secondary apps to support the information search process. According to the 2014 Horizon Report, we’re
beginning to see some early affordances of this technology advancement. For example, Archeologists
from the University of Bristol are embedding sensors directly into historical objects from the transatlantic
slave trade for their Reflector Project (Skelly, 2015).
Sarah Roullard, a librarian and library blogger (2013) indicated the Internet of Things holds great
promise for academic libraries. According to Roullard, “The Internet of Things can also be applied to
library collection management. By affixing radio frequency identification (RFID) tags to collection items,

134

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

they can be identified and inventoried using computers and RFID readers. In effect, each item with an
RFID tag is assigned their own virtual representations in the system. RFID tags can be integrated into
library cards to streamline checkout. Patrons can bring their items to the circulation counter for checkout
and place the items on a checkout counter along with their library card. The circulation counter, equipped
with an RFID reader, scans the items’ tags and the library card, then delivers the data to the library’s
servers and updates the catalog on the Internet.”
With such promise regarding wearables, many academics and university researchers have been quick
to adopt the technology and explore its potential. Google Glass was one of the first commonly available
wearable technologies academicians could readily obtain given its broad release and encouragement from
Google to apply the technology in new and innovative research environments. One of many fascinating
applications was introduced by a Cornell University Professor of Music Cynthia Johnston, who used the
technology while she conducted an orchestra in real time. The image was simultaneously recorded and
displayed on a large screen for the orchestra patrons. Her goal was to provide the audience an augmented
representation of what it is like to conduct an orchestra from the vantage of the conductor (Otani, 2013).
The technology also found its way into academic libraries under the Explorer Program. According
to College and Research Libraries News (2015) “To date, most uses of Glass in academic libraries are
represented by one or more of the following three categories: pedagogy and research, community lending,
and application development.” Early academic libraries to adopt the technology include the University
of Colorado at Boulder, Nevada State Colleges, Miami University, Virginia Tech, and North Carolina
State University. Ernesto Hernandez from the Marydean Martin Library in the Nevada State Colleges
successfully engaged Glass to record freshman information literacy courses from a first-person perspec-
tive (Hernandez, 2014). Jan Heller, a librarian from Miami University found the technology particularly
useful for certain types of literacy instruction in the library. As an early Google Glass Explorer, she was
intrigued about the possibilities the technology promised for library support services (Hawkins, 2014).
However, beyond general technology awareness and basic library instruction, the primary limitation
of Glass in an academic library setting is the ability to share content. Indeed, the Glass technology is one
of being very intimate and personal, whereas librarians are in the business of being very collaborative
with their patrons. Logistically speaking, account restrictions, licensing, and personal profiles made the
devices difficult to circulate in a library environment. Ultimately it proved to be difficult technology to
check in-and-out of a library for general patron use.
Additional problems with the technology included the ability to easily connect to an academic library
network. To use the technology effectively, Google Glass relies on an Android Phone application called
‘My Glass’ that passes data back and forth over a personal wireless network - which is normally less
secure than a university network. In short, there was no easy way to access a secure, private network
within an academic environment outside of the patron using his or her own personal account. That, in
turn required each patron have a smart phone, a Gmail account, the My Glass application installed, and
be able to connect to his or her own data provider or personal wireless network.
Secondly, the physical swiping motion required of Glass takes some getting used to. It can be very
easy to access the wrong application, accidently initiate a recording, or inadvertently share content with
your social network. Hence, training users to quickly understand and adapt to the technology proved to
be very problematic.
Thirdly, the Google Glass technology relied heavily on proprietary applications developed by Google.
While users could connect to Facebook, Twitter and other applications, the primary engine behind Glass
was Google Apps – including G+. Without a G+ account, the user was limited in what they could do

135
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

with the device. Other applications, such as Hangouts, were initially offered as part of Glass, but per-
formance was so poor that it was quickly dropped.
Finally, in order to use the technology with corrective glasses the user needed to purchase a special
part of frames only sold through Google. Along with custom made lens, the cost for the technology
increased substantially for a nascent technology with limited functionality.

Application of Smart Watches in Information Search

Another relatively new entrant into the consumable wearable appliance market is the smart watch tech-
nology. Companies in this spectrum include Pebble, Sony, Samsung, Meta, Omate, Trendy, and multiple
others (Figure 7). IBM was actually one of the first companies to introduce the technology in 2001 with
its WatchPad (Ranger, 2015). In 2012 Sony introduced its smart watch which many consider to be the
template for today’s designs. It goes without saying, however, that Apple’s iWatch, which was only re-
cently introduced following years of speculation, has garnered the most publicity (Apple, 2014). Some of
these smart watches now include telephony capabilities, while others are simply Internet-aware devices.
Still relatively new, the wearable technology provides affordances that allow the user to access the
Internet from nearly any location where there is a data connection. Samsung’s Gear smart watch relies
on the user’s Android-based phone to connect to the Internet via Bluetooth. The user simply installs an
app on their phone providing connectivity capability with the watch. The phone serves as a reader for
email and text messages; performs Internet searches; provides calendar reminders; provide alarm capa-

Figure 7. Smart watch market share 2013 (Smartwatch Group, 2014)

136

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

bilities; serves as a health monitor, and allows the user to install apps from the Google Play Store. Using
voice input capabilities, the watch can perform basic Internet searches using the built in Google search
engine. Most watches include both a microphone and a speaker. The newest versions of the watch, called
the Gear S, provide telephone capabilities so the user doesn’t require a phone to make and receive calls.
Another variant of wrist-based wearables are considered ‘fitness bands’, such as the popular FitBit
and Garmin’s Vivosmart that can also be used for basic communication capabilities, such as checking
email, text massages, and phone calls, in addition to monitoring heart rate, steps, and other fitness met-
rics. However, these devices generally lack the sophistication to perform any sort of information search
beyond general queries.
Libraries are at least beginning to entertain smart watches as a potential information search utility. The
American Association of Law Libraries, for example, found certain native watch applications provided
at least some search utility. For example, certain Gear series watches include a camera useful for note
taking or even scanning. (Although the scan quality is still very poor.) Most watches also include native
Google searching to provide for quick fact checking (Bell, 2014). The technology is still evolving, but
holds some promise.
A potential concern for all of these wearable devices in academe is test security and cheating. Wear-
able devices are basically a search engine, camera, and communication tool worn on the body, allowing
students to retrieve factual information, communicate with one another, and share information. While
relatively easy to ban smart phones while taking a test, it might be more difficult trying to ban a device
that’s difficult to detect or doubles as another device or apparel item.

Potential Impact of Wearable Technology on Library Services

Library and information seeking strategies have been studied for several decades. In particular, the psychol-
ogy of human interaction involved in seeking information. Carol Kuhlthau’s seminal research regarding
the theoretical Information Search Process (ISP) dates back more nearly three decades (Kuhlthau, 1991).
Kuhlthau provides a multi-stage model user’s pass through in the information seeking process (Figure 8).
Nick Belkin followed Kuhlthau with his Anomalous States of Knowledge (ASK) model. Belkin’s re-
search provided much of the foundation for how users interacted with information retrieval systems and
digital libraries (Belkin, 1990). Belkin maintained that in many cases the user was unable to precisely
formulate the type of information they were seeking. An ASK is a situation where “the user realizes
that there is an anomaly in [their] state of knowledge with respect to the problem faced.” The person
may address the anomaly by seeking information. After obtaining information, the person will evaluate
again whether the anomaly still exists. If it does, and the person is still motivated to resolve it, more
information may be sought.16 according to Belkin every search begins with a problem and a need to
solve the problem, the gap between this refers to information need which leads to information seeking.
Gary Marchionini from the University of North Carolina’s School of Library and Information Science
later provided additional context as search relates to digital information. Marchionini maintained while
information is largely available from anywhere in the world thanks to the Internet and digital databases,
this same information is difficult to express without the aid of machines allowing us to transpose infor-
mation in a format we can perceive (Marchionini, 1995). Therefore, regardless the device used to access
this information and despite the ability to access information in new and unforeseen ways, how the user
interprets and uses the information remains the goal of any information search process.

137
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

Figure 8. The Information Search Process (ISP) Model

So why use these wearable devices to access library resources? Is there an inherent advantage afforded
to the information seeker? Will they transform the library information search process? Not yet, but the
future is bright. It’s still too early in the evolution of these devices to provide evidence they are somehow
better or different than a traditional search using any other type of search technology. However, as these
devices evolve and the applications improve it is well within the realm of possibility such appliances
will provide a wealth of library resources when physically attached to the information seeker. Imagine,
for example, a user with a wearable device who can instantly access the Library of Congress – from
anywhere - by simply speaking a search string into eyewear, or a watch, or even Internet-aware apparel
not only always on, but context sensitive.

A Survey of Library Databases: Access Using Wearables

The following is a brief survey of where the library index services industry stands regarding access to
common indexes using wearable appliances. Suffice it to say that we’re probably several years away from
being able to conduct sophisticated information searches using anything more than Google on one of
these devices. Common academic library indexes sometimes sponsor a mobile app or mobile version of
their web site to access their search engine, but until those apps are developed expressly for the wearable
appliance it’s likely that the library patron will not realize any noticeable affordances.
So, the question might be “why?” Is there an advantage in using a wearable device in tandem with a
smart phone to conduct a search? In short, it still may be too early. In experiments conducted at Emporia
State University there wasn’t any intrinsic advantage using a wearable device over any other Internet aware
technology. However, that shortcoming was due, in large measure, to the lack of a native app designed
expressly for the wearable technology. If such an app were available and downloadable through one of
the popular app stores or app sharing services the results may have been much different.

138

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

WorldCat

Worldcat doesn’t offer a native mobile application. Rather, WorldCat provides a mobile web site for access
to their database. Essentially, any Internet aware device – including wearables – can access WorldCat
using a search engine. Searches are relatively simple. Using a smart watch it was relatively easy to invoke
an academic library search by speaking into the device’s microphone. To begin, simply initiate a Google
search from the smart watch which, in turn, launches a mobile browser on a nearby smart phone con-
nected via Bluetooth. From there, access to the WorldCat mobile search interface was accessible where
a search string can be entered. Note that a phone was required in order to conduct the search, however.
The same was true using Google Glass. Using the voice-activated commands and the on-board device
microphone, simply open the WorldCat index using the Glass native browser. However, browsing a web
site on the device is not easy. Native swiping motions are only moderately effective. The user can move
up and down a web page, but selecting options and navigating to linked pages was nearly impossible.

EBSCO Host

EBSCO, including Academic Search Complete and ArticlesPlus, provides a free downloadable app for
iOS and Android mobile devices. However, the app is not yet installable or usable on most wearable
appliances as of this writing. In order to make this client useful on a wearable appliance, a specifically
designed app will need to be developed. Hence, specific access to EBSCO-based content is limited to
smart phones and other traditional forms of mobile media. Until EBSCO develops an application specifi-
cally for wearable appliances, this particularly library index will be relatively inaccessible on a smart
watch or other wearable appliance.

LexisNexis

LexisNexis offers the most replete catalog of mobile applications for the Apple ecosystem, including a
mobile version of their database for iPads and iPhones. However, they do not currently offer an Android
version of their product. Installing the app on an iPad was quite easy. However, without an Android version
of the product, testing the product on a Samsung Gear smart watch or on Google Glass was impossible.
It’s likely without an app developed specifically for a wearable appliance the search engine will not cur-
rently function with most contemporary wearable products – certainly nothing in the Android ecosystem.

ProQuest

As with the other popular indexes, ProQuest provides options for a variety of mobile devices. In fact,
ProQuest arguably provides the most options regarding mobile product support, including tablet sup-
port for iPads, Kindle Fire, Samsung Galaxy products, Google Nexus, and Windows Surface devices.
All manner of iOS, Android, and Windows smart phone devices are also supported. However, each of
these options is supported using a web site adapted for mobility rather than native applications. Hence,
the patron must use a mobile browser to access resources. This is not a problem on a smart phone, but
testing this product was unsuccessful using both a smart watch and Google Glass since neither product
includes a true “browser”. The Glass browser, for example, is a proprietary application written specifi-
cally for the product. Swiping motions do not work well for many web sites. Opening the ProQuest web

139
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

site on Google Glass was relatively easy. Swiping forward and backward moves the user through the web
site. However, selecting an option or inputting information via the touch pad was nearly impossible. In
short, the wearable device is not designed for the interactive components built into a traditional web site.

JSTOR

Like ProQuest, JSTOR provides a mobile web site rather than a native application. Therefore the mobile
version of their services are available using most types of hardware. However, testing using both a Sam-
sung smart watch and Google Glass was again very limited. A smart watch can be used to open mobile
browser on a nearby smart phone. However, opening the site or conducting a search on the watch itself
was not yet a possibility. Using Google Glass, the JSTOR web site will load, however, there was little
or no ability to navigate and control the web site.

ARTstor

As with other library indexes, ARTstor, a large image database with nearly 2 million photos and art im-
ages, provides both an Android and iOS version of its mobile application. In limited testing, however,
the wearable devices were not able to access the index through the mobile app – primarily because
the mobile app has not been developed specifically for the devices. Access to the web-based site was
possible, but browsing and navigation was very limited, rendering the site basically unusable through
Google Glass or a Gear smart watch.
In summary, most of the leading academic indexes simply haven’t yet developed products and services
for the wearable market. While some queries were available via a Bluetooth connected smart phone and
a browser, this search method still requires a secondary device in order to complete the search. Other
companies had native mobile apps, but these typically won’t work for the wearable device unless it has
been expressly designed for the product. This lack of wearable appliance applications is likely due to
economies of scale. Without a critical mass of users, it’s probably not the best use of programming time
to develop apps for such a small market segment. Additionally, the wearable appliances still have not
evolved to the point where they can easily access those services through voice, gesture, or kinesthetic
control.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The use of wearable technologies is gaining considerable momentum in a variety of areas, including
health care, biometrics, disability services, sports, leisure and recreation, gaming, shopping, and even
academics. In fact, many of the earliest wearable prototypes were conceived in academic research labo-
ratories. Many of those prototypes have gradually made their way into the commercial market where they
are being adapted to work with a variety of clothing, glasses, goggles, watches, and other apparel. One
of the earliest wearable technologies to reach mass appeal was Google’s Glass, launched in 2013. This
technology was a bit of a paradox, however. It gained mass appeal in a very short period of time. Hun-
dreds of applications were developed for a variety of purposes, including entertainment, video and photo
sharing, email, and even web conferencing. Applications were also developed to support for individuals
with physical disabilities and other motor impairments. However, the technology was simultaneously

140

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

lauded due to its premature launch and lack of clear market differentiation. Lacking a clear market direc-
tion and clouded with a variety technological limitations, Glass Explorers version was short lived. The
technology was unceremoniously discontinued in 2015. This sudden and somewhat surprising demise
of Glass Explorer was a temporary setback for wearable technology, but it’s likely to reappear in a more
discreet form factor in the near future.
Around the same time, smart watches and other forms of wearable technologies began to appear on
the market. First as health monitoring bands and later as fully functioning phones and Internet aware
devices. While smart watches have been gaining in popularity and market share, they are still too new
to predict their eventual influence in the market. It is likely watches will continue to appeal to a niche
consumer market. However, smart watches appear to have a completely different market appeal for
consumers. First, they are much more discreet than Glass. Secondly, they have more pragmatic util-
ity – serving as watches, email readers, search engines, and now even phones. As research has shown,
watches are by far the most popular wearable device – fully three times more appealing than head-based
technology or eyewear at this time.
Other forms of wearable technologies are beginning to appear in a variety of clothing and apparel.
The difference between these later incarnations and products such as Glass and Smart watches are its
relative discreetness, ability to be used in a variety of conditions, and its ability to remain in a continu-
ous state of internet activity. The notion of ‘there when you need it and gone when you don’t’ appeals to
individuals who want the technology to be available when and where they desire, but hidden when not
in use. The challenge for product designers will be to design wearable technologies that can be discreet,
yet provide the affordances of a new generation of powerful information collection systems.
As these technologies begin to reach mass appeal it is only natural academicians have begun ex-
perimenting with their potential in a variety of teaching and learning environments. Everyone from
researchers to traditional classroom faculty have explored the potential of wearable technologies and
other Internet of Things devices to provide new dimensions for teaching, learning, and research. Despite
the limitations of the current technology and despite the dearth of applications in this space, academi-
cians should continue to pursue wearable technologies as a mid-to-long term solution strategy. It is very
likely as these devices reach mass appeal the developer community will begin to realize the potential in
academic and research library environments. It is quite possible that this interest will initially be driven
by other factors, such as wearable technologies in museums and various public venues.
The wearable community appears to be ready for software developers to begin producing applications
for this space. Prior to the discontinuance of Google Glass, hundreds of software applications were being
developed specifically for the device. However, academic products normally trail commercial products
in the mobile and wearable space. There has to be a critical mass of users in order to justify the cost of
development. Librarians, in particular, are often among the earliest adopters of emergent technologies
on campus. It is likely that a library- or information-search-based wearable application/appliance will
be among the first type of academic product we’ll see emerge in this space.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The natural instructional curiosity extends to the academic and research libraries where a number of wear-
able technologies have begun to make inroads. Starting with Glass in 2013, several libraries across the
country have begun experimenting with the technology to understand its capabilities. A review of those

141
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

early experiments revealed some promise, but still not a panacea. Glass, for example, was introduced in
several libraries for its patrons to check out, test, and experiment. However, one for the first limitations
encountered was Google requires a Google account to pair with the device. Given the nature of libraries
and their equipment circulation, this proved to be an impediment. Secondly, users generally found the
devices difficult to use without a least a moderate level of training. The goal of having devices that were
easily circulated and easy to use for information search was somewhat dashed. Hence, many libraries
resorted to demonstrations, general education, and technology awareness seminars rather pressing the
technology into service as a functional apparatus.
Additional challenges include the limited availability of library index apps for wearable devices such
as Samsung Gear, the iWatch, and Google Glass. Currently, there are very few mobile library and index
apps available for the wearable spectrum. While some apps are available for smart phones, they’ve not
yet made their way into the device specific app management utilities, such as Galaxy Apps, Glass Apps,
and other application indexes. Therefore, users are generally limited to Google search-based queries for
the foreseeable future. The ideal would be to directly access library-specific indexes using wearable
technologies and wearable apps.
Attention is now turning to a new generation of wearable technologies and the promise of using these
technologies in a variety of academic information search activities. These technologies will likely be much
more discreet, always on, location and context sensitive, and provide the ability to retrieve a variety of
information from embedded sensors located directly on the target. So, rather than using a wearable device
to simply locate the resource within the library, the wearable device may be used to retrieve additional
information regarding the source, including an abstract, reviews, links to secondary research associated
with the information, the authors’ biographical sketch, and other types of data associated with the target.
Additionally, the patron will be able to store a variety of queries in a searchable index for easy retrieval,
share queries with other researchers, and even directly embed the query into a paper or presentation.
It is likely that within the next 3-5 years we’ll see a variety of wearable technologies emerge in the
academic space. It is also likely that these devices will provide access to information in multiple dimen-
sions e.g., geo-positioning/special recognition; multi-sensory input, including RFDI, audio, tactile, and
gesture recognition; in/out access to information, including indexes that can both receive and respond to
inputs; multi-dimensional search queries, including searches that can be executed using more than one
type of simultaneous input, etc. As these products emerge, a wealth of research opportunities will fol-
low. In addition, how information is indexed, structured, stored, curated, and accessed may also change
to accommodate these devices, leading to further research and investigation regarding access to digital
resources and the role of libraries to meet these challenges. The possibilities are both endless and quite
exciting.

REFERENCES

Alford, E. (2105). Wearables to heighten demand for local search: prepare now! Search Engine Watch.
Retrieved from http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2396194/wearables-to-heighten-demand-for-
local-search-prepare-now#
Belkin, N. J. (1980). Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. The Canadian
Journal of Information Science, 5, 133–143.

142

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

Belkin, N. J. (1990). The cognitive viewpoint in information science. Journal of Information Science.
Retrieved from http://jis.sagepub.com/content/16/1/11.abstract
Bell, D. (2014). Smart watches in the library? CSSIS.org. Retrieved from http://cssis.org/news/blog/2015/01/
smart watches-library
Bilton, N. (2015) Why Google Glass broke. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.
com/2015/02/05/style/why-google-glass-broke.html?_r=0
Bonato, P. (2005). Advances in wearable technology and applications in physical medicine and reha-
bilitation. Journal of NeuroEngineering and rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://www.jneuroengrehab.
com/content/2/1/2
Booth, C., & Bretcher, D. (2015). Ok, library: Implications and opportunities for Google Glass. College
and Research Libraries. Retrieved from http://crln.acrl.org/content/75/5/234.full
Broussard, M. S. (2011). A spoonful of sugar: Instructional games in libraries. Games in libraries.
Retrieved from http://gamesinlibraries.blogspot.com/2011/12/lemontree-game-at-university-of.html
Davies, C. (2014). Google’s Glass designer talks less-is-more in wearables. Slashgear.com. Retrieved
from http://www.slashgear.com/googles-glass-designer-talks-less-is-more-in-wearables-16325496/
7 Things You Should Know: Wearable Technology. (2013). EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from https://net.
educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7102.pdf
Ehrenkranz, M. (2014) Wearable Tech for people with Disabilities: How a Tech Specialist is Modifying
Google Glass to be More accessible. Idigitaltimes.com. Retrieved from http://www.idigitaltimes.com/
wearable-tech-people-disabilities-how-tech-specialist-modifying-google-glass-be-more-accessible
Evans, D. (2011). The Internet of Things: How the next evolution of the Internet is changing everything.
Cisco.com. Retrieved from https://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/innov/IoT_IBSG_0411FINAL.
pdf
Gonzalez, Z. D. (2014). Put a ring on it. Wearable Technologies.com. Retrieved from https://www.
wearable-technologies.com/2014/04/put-a-ring-on-it/
Hawkins, D. (2014). Library services and Google Glass. Libconf.com. Retrieved from http://www.libconf.
com/2014/04/09/library-services-google-glass/
Hernandez, E. (2014). Google Glass in the academic library. CreativeLibraryPractice.org. Retrieved
from http://creativelibrarypractice.org/2014/03/25/google-glass-in-the-academic-library-the-exploration/
Kersten, P., & Ribbens, C. (2015). Wearable games. Retrieved from http://wearablegames.eu/
Kim, B. (2015). Keeping up with….gamification. Association of College & Research Libraries. Retrieved
from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/keeping_up_with/gamification
Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective.
Journal of the American society for information science, 42(5), 361-371. Retrieved from http://ptarpp2.
uitm.edu.my/silibus/insidesearch2.pdf

143
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

Lukowitz, P., Kirtein, T., & Troster, G. (2014). Wearable systems for health care applications. Methods
of Information in Medicine. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8480044_Wear-
able_systems_for_health_care_applications
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. University of Maryland. Re-
trieved from http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/94044629.pdf
Metz, R. (2014). Google Glass is dead: Long live smart glasses. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/532691/google-glass-is-dead-long-live-smart-glasses/
Wearable computing FAQ. (1997). MIT. Retrieved from: https://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/lizzy/
FAQ/FAQ.txt
Smart phones are fading. Wearables are next. (2014). CNN Money. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.
com/2014/03/19/technology/mobile/wearable-devices/
There’s finally something awesome to do with Google Glass. (2015). CNN Money. Retrieved from http://
money.cnn.com/2015/06/09/technology/google-glass-parkinsons/
Moss, R. (n. d.). Haptic technology: The next frontier in video games, wearables, virtual reality, and
mobile electronics. Gizmag.com. Retrieved from http://www.gizmag.com/haptic-tech-vr-wearables-
games-sightlence/35616/
Horizon Report – Library Edition. (2014). New Media Center. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/
media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN.pdf
Niewolny, D. (2013) How the internet of things is revolutionizing healthcare. Retrieved from http://
cache.freescale.com/files/corporate/doc/white_paper/IOTREVHEALCARWP.pdf
Wearable computing - Challenges and opportunities for privacy protection. (2014). Office of the Pri-
vacy Commissioner. Retrieved from https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/research-recherche/2014/
wc_201401_e.asp
Otani, A. (2013). Cornell music professor becomes Google Glass explorer.
Pultarova, T. (2015). Researchers propose body WiFi for the wearable technology age. Engineering and
Technology Magazine. Retrieved from http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2015/apr/body-wifi.cfm
Racoma, J. A. (2013). Wearable tech: A brief history and a look into the future. Android Authority.
Retrieved from http://www.androidauthority.com/wearable-computing-history-238324/
Ranger, S. (2015). Before the Apple iWatch: A history of smart watches in pictures. ZDNet. Retrieved
from [REMOVED HYPERLINK FIELD]http://www.zdnet.com/pictures/before-the-iwatch-a-history-
of-smart-watches-in-pictures/8/
Roullard, S. (2013). The Internet of Things in the library. Retrieved from http://libserra.com/the-internet-
of-things-in-the-library/
Rusco, L. (2015). Wichita State professors invent accessory lens for Google Glass. Witchita State News.
Retrieved from http://www.wichita.edu/thisis/stories/story.asp?si=2743

144

Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

Sabhlok, R. (2013). Smart watches, Google Glass and the wearable technology chocolate box. Forbes.
com. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/rajsabhlok/2013/12/05/smart watches-google-glass-
and-the-wearable-technology-chocolate-box/
Scott, M. (2013). Google Glass: West Michigan online physics teacher takes students on virtual field
trip to Switzerland. Michigan Live. Retrieved from http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.
ssf/2013/05/google_glass_west_michigan_onl.html
Sheehy, A. (2015). Now that wi-fi is done it’s time for wi-bo. Generator Research.com. Retrieved from:
http://www.generatorresearch.com/tekcarta/analysis-insight/now-that-wi-fi-is-done-its-time-for-wi-bo-
wireless-body/ July, 2015.
Starner, T. (1998). Real-time American Sign Language recognition using desk and wearable computer
based video. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 20(12).
Starner, T. (2013). Google glass lead: How wearing tech on our bodies actually helps it get Out of our
way. Wired.com. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2013/12/the-paradox-of-wearables-close-to-
your-body-but-keeping-tech-far-away/
Van Kranenburg, R. (2011). The Internet of Things. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Matt_Ratto/publication/228360933_The_Internet_of_Things/links/0912f513755ebd1e87000000.pdf
Wagstaff, J. (2015). The path to a wearable future lies in academia. Reuters.com. Retrieved from http://
www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/04/us-tech-academia-idUSKBN0NP1YR20150504
Wasik, B. (2013). Why wearable tech will be as big as the smart phone. Wired.com. Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/2013/12/wearable-computers/
Introduction to wearable technology. (2014). Wearable Devices. Retrieved from http://www.wearablede-
vices.com/what-is-a-wearable-device/
Wearable technology dives into the pool with Xmetrics. (2014). Sporttechie. Retrieved from http://www.
sporttechie.com/2014/11/10/wearable-technology-dives-pool-xmetrics/
Woda, T. (n. d.). Privacy and wearable technology (White Paper). Retrieved from http://www.uknow.
com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Location-Services_White_Paper.pdf
Young, J. (2015). Wearable teaching? College to experiment with Apple Watch as a learning tool.
Chronicle.com. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wearable-teaching-college-
to-experiment-with-apple-watch-as-learning-tool/56459?cid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Google Glass: A wearable technology developed by Google that provides wireless connectivity to a
variety of cloud-based services using a small computer and sensor that resemble glasses.
Smart Watches: The smart watches allow individuals to not only monitor and track activities, but
also provide data to other objects using the results to improve the user experiences. Haptic technologies
have been integrated into the smart watch to provide kinesthetic feedback in the form of micro-vibrations.

145
 
Wearable Technologies in Academic Information Search

Wearables: Wearables are typically voice and/or gesture controlled, are always on, are typically
connected to the Internet at all times, and are environmentally aware.
Wearable Appliances: Wearable appliances are being used in all fields such as gaming, health care,
leisure, recreation, biometrics, academia, and more.
Wearable Technology: Wearable technologies provide the ability to instantly gain access to informa-
tion based on geo-positioning, voice-activated commands, body/Radio Frequency Data Identifier (RFDI)
sensors, tactile input, gestures, heads-up displays, and other discretely transportable input/output sensors
allowing users to access a variety of resources.
Wi-Bo: To support the new generation of wearable devices, a completely new wireless transmission
standard called Wi-Bo (wireless body) has been proposed specifically for the anticipated growth of
wearable technologies and appliances.

146