Making Google Glass look less dorky (and a little less creepy)

Making Google Glass look less dorky (and a little less creepy)

Summary: I'm starting to like the idea of Google Glass, but I still think that there's a lot of work that needs to be done to make them look more natural. Here are a few designs that could help transform Google Glass from a design concept into something that would fit into day-to-day life.

TOPICS: Google

 |  Image 1 of 7

  • Thumbnail 1
  • Thumbnail 2
  • Thumbnail 3
  • Thumbnail 4
  • Thumbnail 5
  • Thumbnail 6
  • Thumbnail 7
  • (Image: Google)


    I have to admit that when Google first unveiled its Glass wearable computer, I couldn't get past how dorky it looked. I couldn't see — no pun intended — how anyone would want to walk around and interact with others while they had a strange contraption attached to their heads.

    But then, after a few days and a couple of beers, it dawned on me that Google Glass is just the latest in a long line of "things" that we've attached to out heads. Glasses, sunglasses, goggles, headphones, Bluetooth headsets, and more besides.

    Attaching strange things to our heads is not a new concept.

    That said, I still think Google Glass looks odd. Maybe it's because it has a sterile look, or maybe because it tries too hard to be invisible. While you might not draw attention to yourself wearing Glass in Silicon Valley, there aren't many other places on Earth where I feel that wearing a pair isn't going to cause people's heads to spin around so fast that they'd be at risk of snapping their own necks.

    Nickolay Lamm and Mark Pearson, both of, have risen to the challenge of making Google Glass looks look a little more acceptable. To do this, Lamm and Pearson took two different approaches.

  • (Image: Lamm and Pearson)

    Approach 1: Make Glass less visible

    The first approach that the duo took to making Google Glass look less dorky was to make it smaller and less obtrusive.

    In order to achieve this, Lamm and Pearson took the frame of the existing Google Glass concept and moved it to the back of the head. By doing this, the frame, along with the bulky hardware, is not visible on the face. This basically leaves a tiny lens sitting in front of the wearer's eye.

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • She...

    Look like a borg.
    • She looks futuristic....

      However, I'm trying to work with current technology here. As of now, there is no way getting around the fact that there has to be a piece of glass in front of your face. The only way to make this less obtrusive is to have the glass piece connected by a thin wire and not an entire frame. What's the point of building an entire frame for one piece of glass? It makes no sense.
      Nickolay Lamm
  • DragonballZ

    Am I the only one that thought of the Saiyan Scouter when I saw these images?? It must be "over 9000!!!"
    • indeed...

      Reminds me of thw good old days when anime disnt take itself to seriusly. Pretty soon 4chan will be memeing the crap out of this.
  • Within 15 years Google Glass will be just a contact lens.

    And, by then, a Supreme Court decision will validate the concept that a person should not and does not have a right to privacy in a public place.

    Just examples of my early March crystal ball gazing.
    • I can't expect privacy in a public place?

      Really, what's the world coming to :)
      Little Old Man
      • There has been a legality issue about video surveillance in a public area

        Some claim video tapping children in a park without permission, for example, is against existing laws. I was referring to that scenario. Boy, does that example fit the definition of creepy sleezy.
    • The question is...

      ...what do you do about private meetings?
      John L. Ries
      • cell phone jammer.

        They sell units that will cover a room but not penetrate walls, so you don't have to kill the whole buildings signal. That and companies will probably simply require to see a doctors note for any employee wearing glasses. It may not sound legal, but if you agree to such things in your work agreement/contract then you don't have much choice.
  • will they guarantee

    No radiation effects on the eye?
    D.J. 43
    • whatever the amount...

      It will be far less then what you get from exposure to the sun.
  • Glass benefits not yet realized

    These designs for Glass are huge improvements. Any concerns about surreptetious
    recording can easily be addressed in a future release with just a couple of
    minor enhancements. Think of all the advantages this could technology could

    Using timed, record-over, there would be no need for an off switch and therefore
    no need to worry about surreptetious recording. Glass would be truly a hands-
    free device. Imagine how helpful this would be for police investigating traffic
    accidents. Insurance companies should like this.

    Of course this also could be used to reduce crime as well. Glass witness
    accounts would be much more accurate and reliable than eye-witness accounts.
    This would obviously improve the efficiency of police investigations. With
    increased efficiency comes reduced cost. Perhaps some of the savings could be
    used to expand police services.

    In addition to record-over, another enhancement such as real-time remote viewing
    including GPS could help eliminate a lot of distracting cell calls in the car.
    Often those call are little more than a "where are you?". A simple "I see what U
    see" application would make these types of calls a thing of the past. People
    could keep track of others with much less effort involved.

    Imagine how effective remote viewing could be law enforcement, especially when a
    new release of Glass could include night vision capability. With appropriate
    pattern recognition software they may even be able to deter crime while it's
    still in the planning phase. Until then, it would make it much easier to
    determine the whereabouts of those who may be involved, or other persons of
    • there was a chip...

      That the nsa made in the early 90's that would have encrypted phone calls to prevent wire tapping. They tried to make it standard in every phone. But... there was a catch. In order for this to work and still allow a government agency to do a legit wiretap, each and every chips encryprion key would be known to the nsa.

      The govwrnment left it open to the people to decide weather to adopt the chip. You know what happened? Not a single person bought into the new chip. No one was willing to allow the government a free backdoor into any conversation thwy wanted.

      If such a "backdoor" were included on google glass then no one would buy it. Google wouldn't shoot thwmselves in the foot like that. It would be financial suicide.
      • Clipper Chip

        I vaguely remember hearing about the clipper chip. I could be wrong, but I was
        under the impression that your NSA, or other law enforcement agencies can still
        do wiretaps. The chip was only to make people feel more secure. There never was
        a need for a back door when the front door was open for national security. It
        seems the same for Glass. Data is routed and tracked through ISP's. Google
        wouldn't be part of that sort of monitoring.

        I'm not in to paranoid thinking, but what seems strange to me, looking at it from the
        outside (I'm Canadian), is that, there seemed to much more concern about fixed
        camera surveillance, even though Glass has the potential to be much more invasive.

        While it seems reasonable that we shouldn't expect rights to privacy to be the
        same in public places as they are in private places, it is also true that Google
        does blur license plates and faces in it's street view. Youtube will also honour
        take down requests if your face appears in a video without your consent. In a
        free society the law should not attempt to define acceptable moral or ethical
        values, but should instead reflect those values.
    • it was called..

      "Clipper Chip" and it was released in 1993. It was abandoned in1996 after tremendouse public backlash.
  • Stupid profanity checking.

    Apparently when surreptetious is spelled correctly if fails the test. How about this ZDNet?
    If a word is in your effing dictionary, it doesn't need to be tested for profanity. Would that be
    simple enough for a tech site to manage?
  • how it LOOKS?

    I can't believe anyone is really considering how this device LOOKS. I couldn't give a flying f*** how it looks. The real issue here is the invasion of privacy the general public is going to suffer at the hands of socially mal-addapted people with youtube accounts. Your every move will be up for grabs....
    • so do you freak out when...

      People are taking pictures in public with normal cameras? No I don't think you do. The thing most people don't realize is that you don't actually have a right to privacy when your on a public place.

      This is why we make a distinction between public and private places. The owner of a given piece of property may prohibit the use of recording devices on their property but no one can tell anyone to not take photos or record video in a public place.

      You could say "don't record me", but in that situation the law would tell you that if you don't like the non illegal activities occuring in a public place then the right thing to do would be to remove yourself from the situation and stop in infringing on the rights of others in that pubplic place.

      Now town ordinances may have provisions for such a scenario, but it would most likely be resteicted to parks or public transportation terminals.

      At the end of the day, its not the man with the camera that's a problem, its you for thinking your opinion trumps his freedoms in a public place.