Augmented Reality 2.

0
Dieter Schmalstieg, Tobias Langlotz Mark Billinghurst
Institute for Computer Graphics and Vision The HIT Lab NZ
Graz University of Technology University of Canterbury
Graz, Austria Christchurch, New Zealand
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract. Augmented Reality (AR) was first demonstrated in the 1960’s, yet is it still not widely
used. However a number of technologies have recently emerged that can be used to easily deploy
large numbers of Augmented Reality applications to many users. Camera equipped cell phones
with significant processing power and graphics abilities provide an inexpensive, versatile
platform for AR applications, while the social networking technology of Web 2.0 provides a
large-scale infrastructure for collaboratively producing and distributing geo-referenced content.
This combination of widely used mobile hardware and Web 2.0 software allows the development
of a new type of AR platform that can be used on a global scale. In this paper we describe the
Augmented Reality 2.0 concept and present existing work on mobile AR and web technology that
could be used to create AR 2.0 applications.

1. Introduction
Augmented Reality (AR) is an area of research that aims to augment the real world by overlaying
computer-generated data on it. Azuma [Azu97] identifies three key characteristics of AR systems:
(1) mixing virtual images with the real world, (2) three-dimensional registration of digital data
and (3) interactivity in real time. The first AR experience with these characteristics was
developed over forty years ago [Sut68], but mainstream adoption has been limited by the
available technologies.
Early AR applications ran on stationary desktop computers and required the user to wear bulky
head mounted displays (HMDs). Despite the ergonomic shortcomings with this, there has been
success in certain applications areas, such as industrial assembly [Miz00], surgery training
[Sei04] or games [Son09]. However, the truly radical use of AR based on mobile technology that
allows “Anywhere Augmentation” away from the desktop has not yet been realized.
In this paper, we describe how recent technological developments allow Augmented Reality
applications to be deployed on a global scale and used by hundreds of thousands of people at the
same time. We call this approach Augmented Reality 2.0, which describes a combination of
Augmented Reality and Web 2.0.
Web 2.0 is itself a recent development. According to Tim O’Reilly1, the main difference from
Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is that Web 2.0 enables end user participation in the creation of web content,
and thereby encourages social networking. In contrast, the original web technology was merely a
source for information and was mainly used for one way information retrieval. Only few people
created content, while a huge amount of users accessed content without creating or modifying it.
Web pages were mostly static and did not allow the users to interact with them or provide
additional information.
The advent of Web 2.0 substantially changed the way people use the Internet. Instead of only
retrieving content, users are engaged in creating and modifying web material. Web interfaces

1
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
were simplified to a point that even people with no technical skills could participate in this. This
has opened the way for services based on user participation, like Flickr2, YouTube3 and
Facebook4, among others.
In a similar way, the goal of AR 2.0 is to provide widely deployable location based AR
experiences that enhance creativity, collaboration, communications, and information sharing, and
are based on user generated content. With an AR 2.0 platform a user should be able to move
through the real world and see virtual overlays of related information appearing at locations of
interest. Figure 1.0 shows how this might look.

Figure 1: Contrary to traditional map displays (left), AR 2.0 will navigation information on top of the
images captured by mobile phones (right). Users will also be able to create and update 3D registered
content, creating a location-based social network.
This information overlay will be dynamically generated from a variety of sources and seamlessly
fused together on the users display. In addition the user will be able to generate their own location
specific virtual content while in the real world that can then be uploaded to content servers and
shared with others. Finally, the platform will provide support for social networking through
synchronous and asynchronous context sensitive data sharing. AR 2.0 as a user interface and
networked medium has many parallel characteristics to Web 2.0 (See Table 1).
Table 1: Comparison of Web 2.0 and AR 2.0 characteristics
Web 2.0 AR 2.0
Large number of users and web sites (already Large scale in number of users as well as
true for Web 1.0) working volume
No clearly visible separation between accessing No clearly visible separation between
local data and remote data visualizing local data or remote data
Applications running in a browser behave like Applications locally running on the device can
local application, encouraging the user to transparently download modules or new
interact with them features from remote servers
A huge amount of non technical people retrieve Users can creating or updating the AR content
data and contribute or modify it as well at specific locations
Information from different sources can be Mash-ups which access data from sources like
combined and create a new value-added traditional web services and combine with AR
application, in so-called Mash-ups content to display it in three-dimensional space

2
http://www.flickr.com/
3
http://www.youtube.com/
4
http://www.facebook.com/
If AR applications are going to be deployed on a massive scale, there are several key areas of
technology that are needed:
(1) A low cost platform that combines AR display, tracking and processing
(2) Mobility as key requirement for the platform to realize AR in a global space
(3) Backend infrastructure for distributing of AR content and applications
(4) Easy to use authoring tools for creating AR content
(5) Large scale AR tracking solutions which work in real time
In the remainder of this chapter we first discuss the related work that provides the enabling
technologies for AR 2.0. We then explain the use of AR for social networking, end-user authoring
for AR 2.0, and present several case studies of early AR 2.0 applications.

2. Related Work
AR 2.0 builds on earlier work in several areas, in particular research in mobile AR, social
networking, and location based services. In the late 1990s, early experiments were conducted on
presenting geo-referenced content in AR applications. The Touring Machine [Fei97] was the first
mobile outdoor AR application and was used as a campus tour guide by showing virtual
annotations on real university buildings. Although simple, this prototype showed the power of in-
situ presentation of geo-referenced information.
Over the last several years the increasing computing capability of personal mobile devices has
made it possible to move AR systems from the backpack mobile AR systems of the mid-nineties
to Tablet PCs [New06], PDAs [Wag03] and then mobile phones [Möh04]. Figure 2.0 shows
sample systems in this evolution. Most recently applications such as Wikitude [Mob09] can show
location tagged AR content on a mobile phone in much the same way as the Touring Machine.
Nokia’s MARA5 project is another commercial ready example of the idea shown in the Touring
Machine.

Figure 2: Evolution of Mobile AR Systems

While the mobile AR hardware platform was changing, there was also progress being made on
the software. The emergence of the Web as a mass phenomenon prompted Spohrer to suggest the
“WorldBoard” [Spo99], a combination of distributed online information systems and geo-
referenced indexing. Information could be published in traditional web form, but were indexed by
geographic position rather than by a symbolic URL. The short-term goal of the WorldBoard was
to allow users to post messages on every cubic meter of space humans might go on the planet,
while the long-term goal was to allow users to experience any information in any place, co-
registered with reality.

5
http://research.nokia.com/research/projects/mara/
Unfortunately, the WorldBoard vision was not fully realized, partly because key technologies
such as community content creation tools were not mature enough. Later work, such as the Nexus
project in Stuttgart [Hoh99], has similar concepts but targets coarse geo-referenced information
systems rather than Augmented Reality presentation.
Today, we see a new mass phenomenon, which has been dubbed Web 2.0. This is characterized
by open communication, decentralization of authority, and freedom to share and re-use Web
content [Bar06]. It is also user collaboration driven and provides a platform offering open APIs
and applications that can be combined in sophisticated applications integrating information from
multiple sources [Ore08].
One of the key innovations that can be supported through Web 2.0 is social networking and
crowd sourced content. Without revolutionary changes, the availability of the web has reached a
point that the voluntary joint effort of literally millions of users can produce databases of a size
and quality that has previously been considered impossible. For example, Wikipedia6 has already
surpassed many traditional encyclopaedias in coverage and richness, and Flickr is one of the
largest collections of digital images worldwide. As a side effect, simple keyword tagging is
powerful enough to replace sophisticated semantic web techniques as an organizational principle
and can scale to a large numbers of users. The open architecture of the Web 2.0 services allows
everybody to enrich these experiences with Mash-ups, while the underlying infrastructure is paid
for by advertising. It is important to note that all these results are based on simple existing
technologies such as HTTP and AJAX.
As part of the Web 2.0 movement, digital globe and map services have become very popular –
Google Earth7, Google Maps 8and Microsoft Virtual Earth9 among others. While the primary
source of data of these applications is produced by large enterprises at a high cost and level of
effort, it is noteworthy that the results are still made freely available via the Web 2.0 ecosystem.
Using these map services, next generation web technologies may be used to link physical places,
objects and people to digital content. For example, Ambient Intelligence (AmI) [Aar01] is a set of
projects that explores the convergence of mobile, ubiquitous and intelligent systems (e.g. context-
aware systems) and interaction with real objects. Another project is Deusto Sentient Graffiti
[Deu09] which consists of an application that allows users to create annotations associated to real
places using context location data with Web 2.0 infrastructure. It aims to show the potential of
mash-ups, using the capabilities of mobile devices, Web 2.0 mash-ups as a platform, ubicomp
Web paradigms and social annotation of objects and places.
Deusto Sentient Graffiti is based on AJAX technology, and real objects offer URL tags to XML
virtual post-its. These post-its have multimedia content or a pointer to a web service and
contextual attributes. Users of the system can move through an annotated environment, and
browse and consume the available annotations according to the user’s current context, profile and
preferences. Servers store, index, and match user annotations against the user’s current context
published.
The final key area of related work is social networking. Many mobile devices have versions of
desktop social networking applications such as Facebook for the Apple iPhone10. However with
mobile devices, social networking applications can also be developed based on the device
location and other context cues.

6
http://www.wikipedia.org/
7
http://earth.google.de/
8
http://maps.google.de/
9
http://www.microsoft.com/virtualearth/
10
http://iphone.facebook.com/
There are many popular mobile social applications which use context cues. In Dodgeball [Dod09]
users receive text messages of friends, and friends of a friend if they are within ten blocks of each
other. The location-awareness is implemented by users’ entering their location and time, and
using cell tower IDs. Plazes [Pla09]] is a location/context aware system that relies on internet
infrastructure to serve information about services and nearby friends. Location is based on GPS,
and MAC addresses of networks and WiFi access points. Rumble [Rum09] helps mobile users
locate nearby friends, or even strangers with the same interests, and offers with access to location
related data. Jabberwocky [Jab09] performs repeated Bluetooth scans to create the sense of the
“familiar stranger” in an urban community. Familiar strangers are people that are always nearby
in an urban region but are acquaintances. Serendipity [Eag05] uses Bluetooth technology to
facilitate interactions between physically proximate people through a centralized server. Through
the identification of Bluetooth ID’s and support of on-line profile matching, Serendipity identifies
new people to become acquainted with.
As can been seen there has been related work developed in a number of areas, including social
networking, location based services, and mobile AR, however there has been few examples of
applications that combine all these areas together. In the next section we discuss how this
previous work can be integrated into a platform for developing AR 2.0 applications.

3. Augmented Reality for Social Networking

A low cost hardware platform for AR is key for realizing our vision of AR 2.0. Today’s smart
phones satisfy all basic requirements as a hardware platform for AR 2.0. They combine a display
with 3D graphics generation and enough computing power to track the device using the camera,
with the optional assistance of various other sensing technologies like GPS, WiFi triangulation
and inertial sensors. Smart phones are inexpensive as they are produced for a mass market, and
there are currently hundreds of millions sold per year. This momentum ensures a large scale in
terms of number of users and geographic coverage.
A further feature of smart phones over earlier mobiles phones is their capability to communicate
over various channels. They use third generation mobile phone communication technology (3G),
which is optimized for data rather than voice traffic. WiFi and Bluetooth complete the set of
supported fast communication channels. This makes it possible to access the internet to request
additional content or program modules. Furthermore it allows applications to remove the
separation of local and remote data.
Spohrer’s vision of “information in places” can be realized by using smart phones as the
hardware platform and Web 2.0 as the backend infrastructure. Web 2.0 owes its success largely to
open standards, which allow interested parties to easily partake in an economy of scale. Likewise,
the success of AR 2.0 will require a federated approach and especially open formats for content
description and content exchange.
An interesting common standard is the Keyhole Markup Language (KML), an XML dialect
utilized by Google Earth, which is open and extensible. It incorporates Placemarks which
describe geo-referenced information, and also refers to other web standards for multimedia
content. For example, 3D models (essential for AR) are described as COLLADA files, an XML-
based 3D exchange format increasingly supported by digital content creation tools. However,
while KML is an open format, it still has a lot of properties that are proprietary to Google Earth.
Thus it is only partially suitable for describing AR content, which could be referenced in many
ways (geo-referenced, referenced by barcodes, etc.). Consequently, we suggest adopting ideas
from KML into a new open format called ARML (Augmented Reality Markup Language), which
describes the AR content and its spatial reference system.
As shown in figure 3, a location-based AR application uses data and services remotely stored and
served by web mash-ups, visualized on the mobile device. Data and services offered to the user
must be related to geospatial information corresponding to user location – using GPS, WiFi or
Bluetooth tracking, for example – and geo-database web services. Content authoring can be
performed using a desktop computer or directly on the mobile device while on location. Taking
advantage of open APIs and mash-ups, complex applications can be easily broken down into
smaller components and leverage existing online services. Given appropriate sources of geo-
referenced data, developers can focus on the user interface experience of AR 2.0 applications.

Figure 3: Data flow of end-user provided content in an Augmented Reality 2.0 scenario.
Specific AR data types can easily be integrated into the XML dialects, and hosted using standard
web based databases, accessible via HTTP. New types of mash-ups designed specifically to be
consumed by AR clients can be derived from a mixture of existing (conventional) content and
content specifically created for AR. This content will include the visual objects, other multimedia
data, application code and the feature database necessary for local tracking.
The selection of content by the user can be performed using either a push mechanism or a pull
mechanism such as a webserver capable of accepting simple HTTP queries encoding the current
location or area. This allows everybody with access to a server to provide geo-referenced AR
content, either genuine or based on data accessed via mash-up. In addition, larger service
providers (the “YouTube of AR”) can syndicate content provided by many users and organized
through tagging. Such syndicated hosters would allow a wide audience to publish their material,
and also provide easy access for the mainstream audience.
For consuming the AR content, we image that an end-user device has subscribed to content feeds
from a number of AR service providers, based on personal taste and recommendations from
others. At a given location, the device sends a request containing its current position and other
context information to all these service providers, and receives an index of available content. The
request can ask for all information in a user-defined radius around the current point of interest, or
it could describe an area in an alternative form, for example all data along a route to a given
destination. The exact details on which information to download and/or to present to the user, and
how the user interface lets the user control what he or she sees, is entirely up to the client, and
many approaches are possible without modifying the server side infrastructure.
For example, if an online service for image recognition from a large database of geo-referenced
images is available, this service would act as a filter: The client device takes a picture and sends it
to the recognition service, possibly assisted with GPS coordinates to reduce the search space. If
the image is recognized successfully, the recognition service returns an exact position match,
which can then be used by the client to query for content.
Another approach is the use of 2D barcode markers, such as DataMatrix11 or QR-Code12 (see
figure 4), which contain enough information to point to a specific web address of an AR content
service. This can substitute the need for GPS or image recognition, and directly point to specific
content rather than having to know a specific server feed or channel beforehand. It is also a
suitable method for non geo-referenced content, for example, for downloading an AR game board
game printed and advertised in a newspaper. If barcode markers are used, they can also initialize
tracking, and thereby establish a common frame of reference (for a shared space of multiple
users), while ongoing tracking can be based on natural features in the surroundings.

Figure 4: DataMatrix and QR-code

4. Application Development and Authoring

Although mobile devices provide a good hardware platform for AR experiences, there is still a
need for creating the content that is going to be viewed, and authoring the AR 2.0 applications.
Most web based social services provide tools for easy content creation, however there are no such
tools yet for AR 2.0 experiences.
In developing AR 2.0 applications there are several aspects that must be considered; the
application data, programming the mobile AR client interface and creating a representation of the
real world. In this section we consider each of these aspects in turn.
Authoring in an Augmented Reality 2.0 ecosystem is transformed from a monolithic problem into
one that can be simultaneously addressed with a multitude of tools. Authoring activities range
from genuine creation of new applications from ground up to simple Mash-ups with only minimal
original contribution. They key factor is that standard file formats can be used at least for passive
content. Work on actual content creation will likely be done primarily on the desktop, while
layout may either be performed on the desktop (e.g., using a map of the area), or in-situ. For
many instances of application logic, wizards can be created (for example, for AR Magic Books or
a timeline-based self-running presentation), which make the task accessible for end users without

11
http://datamatrix.kaywa.com
12
http://www.denso-wave.com/qrcode/index-e.html
programming. Complete integrated development environments for code-centric applications are
also conceivable.
4.1 Application Data
As described in the previous section, AR 2.0 applications involve the aggregation of multiple data
sources depending on the users needs. Combining multiple data sources through open APIs into a
complex “mash-up” application makes it easier to create mobile social software:
(1) Complex social network algorithms and huge databases can be processed on
servers, offering light-weighted data and services to clients;
(2) Mash-ups can use the benefit of existing social networking applications and other
related applications to concentrate in designing features truly related to mobility,
pervasiveness, location and context awareness;
(3) APIs (like GoogleMaps13) and geo-databases can be used to create geospatial
mash-ups, simplifying the development of location aware social software;
(4) Users’ preferences and other data that might be used to infer context can be
gathered from web sources end combined with mobile client acquired data.
A possible extension is the use of AJAX for live client-server collaboration. If the content is
represented at the client side as a document object model (DOM), for example as an X3D
compatible scene graph, a client-server connection, e. g., based on XML and Javascript, can be
used to shift the execution of part of the application logic to the server. This avoids lengthy
downloads, allows exploitation of the greater computational power of the server, and facilitates
multi-user applications. In many cases it should be possible to mask the incurrent latency of
network transmission using the asynchronous, multi-threaded execution model of AJAX.
Applications that are not just passive browsers of AR information, and that cannot be encoded
with a simple approach such as Javascript, will have to be provided in binary form, forsaking
platform independence. However, even platform-specific downloads are a large step forward
towards the interoperability of AR application compared to current approaches.
4.2 Client Application Development
There has been little previous research on client authoring tools for end-user AR 2.0 applications,
although there are several existing authoring tools for building AR applications, and for mobile
phone applications that provide a useful starting point. These can be broadly organized into two
types: 1) AR authoring tools for programmers, 2) AR authoring tools for non programmers. These
categories can be further organized into low level tools which require coding/scripting skills, and
higher level application builder tools which use higher level libraries or visual authoring
techniques (see Table 1).
Table 1. Types of desktop AR authoring tools
Programmers Non-programmers
Low level ARToolkit[Kat99] DART[Mac04]
arTag[Fia05] ComposAR[Don08]
High level Studierstube[Sza98] AMIRE[Gri02]
osgART [Gra05] BuildAR[Bui09]

Low level AR computer vision tracking libraries such as ARToolKit [Kat99] can be used to
calculate camera position relative to physical markers. However in order to develop a complete
application more code needs to be added for 3D model loading, interaction techniques, and other

13
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/
utility functions. High level programming libraries such as Studierstube [Sza98] and osgART
[Gra05] provide a complete system for developing AR applications. Studierstube includes all of
the functions needed for building an AR application such as scene graph rendering, networking,
window management and support for input devices, etc.
There is another set of authoring tools that have been developed for non-programmers. At the
most basic level, tools such as BuildAR [Bui09] allow users to associate virtual models with
visually tracked AR markers, but there is no support for object interaction or more complicated
behaviours. A more complete system is DART [Mac04], the Designer’s AR Toolkit, which is a
plug-in for the popular Macromedia Director software and which allows non-programmers to
create AR experiences using the low-level AR services provided by the Director Xtras, and to
integrate with existing Director behaviours and concepts.
Although there are several tools for building desktop AR applications, there is less support for
mobile AR. These tools can be summarised in table 2. At the low level, the ARToolKit tracking
library has been ported over to the Symbian operating system [Hen05] while the Studierstube
tracker library [11] is available for multiple mobile platforms such as Symbian, iPhone and
Windows Mobile.
Table 2. Authoring tools for mobile phones
Programmers Non-programmers
Low level Studierstube Tracker [Sch08] Python14
ARToolkit for Symbian [Hen05]
High level Studierstube ES [Sch08] FlashLite16
M3GE15

One of the only higher level programming libraries for mobile AR applications is the Studierstube
ES [Sch08] (StbES) library. This is a low-level C++ based application framework for developing
AR applications for mobile devices. StbES provides support for 2D and 3D graphics, video
capture, tracking, multimedia output, persistent storage, and application authoring. For non-AR
applications there are mobile 3D game engines such as the Java M3GE library that can be used
for image loading, input, output, and general functions like AI, collision detection and other 3D
rendering facilities.
For non-programmers, there is no mobile AR authoring tool but Python is available for rapid
development of non-AR mobile applications. The Symbian version of Python has support for 2D
and 3D graphics, camera input, file handling and networking, and many other functions for
rapidly prototyping mobile applications. Users can develop python scripts on their desktop and
then run them on their phone using a native interpreter. Other high level visual design tools are
available to author mobile graphics applications. The most popular is Flash Lite, a version of the
Adobe Flash Player that has been specifically designed for use on mobile phones. With this a
developer can use a combination of visual authoring and ActionScript scripting to build
interactive phone applications.
Developing an AR 2.0 authoring tool for non-programmers is an active area of research, but as
can be seen there are a number of options for developing AR 2.0 applications using existing low
level and high level tools.

14
http://www.forum.nokia.com/Resources_and_Information/Tools/Runtimes/Python_for_S60/
15
https://m3ge.dev.java.net/
16
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashlite/
4.3 In-Situ Reconstruction and Authoring
One of the most important aspects of AR 2.0 is how the representation of the real world is
captured. This is necessary so that AR 2.0 content can be attached to real world locations and
objects. Of course, simple configurations can be created from markers, and environments that are
planar (such as a wall) or near-planar (such as a façade) can simply be photographed and then
turned into tracking targets with an automated tool. We also assume that wide-area geo-
referenced information sources, such as a database of streets and even textured 3D models of
buildings, are available through large geo-data providers. Moreover, large collections of geo-
referenced photos are already available through image services. However, this does not solve the
immediate problem of creating 3D models of specific environments, or register user-generated
content in such an environment.
Early work in in-situ authoring focused on placing virtual objects in the real scene and supported
users through triangulation from different views [Bai01] or working plane constraints [Pie04].
Another approach, which allows the user to create AR applications in place, was presented in
[Lee04]. The designer can thereby interact with the virtual world by using a marker based
tangible interface. Another example is sketchand+ [Sei03] an AR collaboration tool geared
towards urban planner and architects. The approach was to annotate design proposals with 3D
sketches, text snippets and audio clips in order to communicate processes, design decisions and
other spatial artefacts to peers.
More recently, systems have been demonstrated that simplify the task of arranging virtual objects
in 3D through constrained modelling. Wither et al. [Wit08] presented a system that uses a single
point laser range finder to measure the object surface. Afterwards an annotation can be stuck to
that object and automatically aligned to the surface of the object. A pure camera-based approach
to specifying the location and orientation was demonstrated by the University of Cambridge
[Rei06] [Rei07] by integrating an online model estimation framework to extract the 3D geometry
of the real world and place annotations automatically with respect to it.
As can been seen, there are currently no ideal tools for authoring AR 2.0 applications. This is an
active area of research. However, there are methods that can be used for content aggregation,
rapid prototyping and in-Situ authoring. Over time these will progress from being low level
developer libraries to tools that can be easily used by non-programmers.

5. Case Studies
Although large scale deployment of AR 2.0 applications has not occurred yet, there have been
several mobile AR experiences that display features that are needed in such applications. In this
section we report on several mobile AR case studies that have important lessons for developing
complete AR 2.0 applications.
5.1 Mobile AR Advertising
For AR 2.0 applications one of the challenges is how to deliver AR experiences to mobile devices
on a massive scale. Traditionally AR applications have been preinstalled on devices or just
distributed to a small number of users. However, recently researchers have begun to explore
mobile AR advertising experiences. These rely on being able to widely distribute AR
applications, and begins to address the AR 2.0 deployment challenge.
In 2007 the HIT Lab NZ delivered the world’s first mobile AR advertising campaign. Working in
collaboration with Saatchi and Saatchi17 and the Hyperfactory18, they developed a marketing
campaign for the Wellington Zoo in Wellington, New Zealand. For three days in a local city

17
http://www.saatchi.com/worldwide/index.asp
18
http://www.thehyperfactory.co.nz/
paper an advertisement was printed with a number that a code could be texted to (see figure 5).
When the reader sent a text message to the number they were sent back a small 200K application
that they could run on their mobile phone. When the application was running they could point
their mobile phone at the printed advertisement and see a virtual zoo animal, such as a cheetah,
popping out of the newspaper page. This appeared overlaid on a live video view from the phone
camera. To achieve this, a mobile AR application was written using the Symbian port of
ARToolKit [Hen05], which combined a simple 3D model loader with marker based tracking.

Printed AR Advertisement Virtual Zoo Animal Appearing

Figure 5: Wellington Zoo Mobile AR campaign

Although technically the AR application being delivered was very simple, just a single static
model, there were challenges in being able to freely distribute a mobile AR advertisement outside
of the lab environment. In this case the application was built for Nokia N-series mobile phones
running the Symbian operating system, such as the N95, and N72 phones, etc. This meant that
code on the application server needed to detect the type of phone that the text message came
from. If the phone was not an N-series phone then the AR application was not sent since it could
not be run. Instead a picture was sent back showing what the AR application would have looked
like if the phone could have run it. There were also different versions of the application that
needed to be developed depending on the N-series phone model that was being used. If the text
message was sent from a Nokia phone then there was a specific executable sent to the mobile
phone depending on the model of phone it was.
In addition there were challenges in creating the AR content. The initial virtual models delivered
were very large with many tens of thousands of polygons. Significant work needed to be done to
reduce them down to the size that they could be rendered in real time on the mobile phone. The
texture map images for the models also needed to be reduced in size and converted to the file
format that could be rendered on the phone.
Despite the work involved, the advertising campaign was a success. Attendance at the zoo
increased, there was a large amount of press generated, and Saatchi and Saatchi won several
advertising awards for the innovative use of leading edge technology. Since that time several
more campaigns have been run exploring different aspects of AR marketing. In all cases the most
challenging aspects have been the content creation and application distribution, not the
application programming.
Although not a complete AR 2.0 application, this simple application shows both the impact that
mobile AR applications can have, but also the challenges that must be addressed in terms of
content creation and application distribution.
5.2 Content Delivery
On of the key challenges of AR 2.0 applications is how to provide location based delivery of
software and services. For example, when a person is visiting a new city location they may want
to be able to automatically download AR tags of building names and virtual comments that other
visitors have left at that location.
Mobile service provides typically provide a 3G or GPRS service that can be used to deliver
content directly to the handset. However this is often expensive to use (especially with service
providers that charge for data transfer) and the 3G service isn’t location specific.
Researchers at the Australasian CRC for Interaction Design (ACID)19 have been exploring an
alternative delivery method that could be useful for AR 2.0 applications. The first version of this
is an embedded device supporting transfer of digital content to and from nearby mobile phones.
Called the InfoPoint, this is a small Linux computer connected to wired networking and
Bluetooth hardware than can detect when mobile phones are within range and then use Bluetooth
to automatically push content on the phone. In this way location specific applications or data
(such as txt, image, audio and video files) can be delivered to phones at no cost to the end user,
exploiting the use of the mobiles as ‘third screens’ [Gog06]. The design intention behind
InfoPoint is to manage and deliver situated content for mobile phone users without the need for
custom software.
The InfoPoint access hardware was tested in a heritage trail tourist application in the Fishing Boat
Harbour in Fremantle, Perth in 2008. This was adaptation of a guidebook prototype that
supported the upload and download of situated content by mobile phone users running custom
software. The prototype used LightBlue to support Bluetooth features (OBEX) that avoid the
need for users to install client software [Che05, Sch06]. The unit was solar-powered, sealed for
protection against the coastal climate and mounted on a traffic pole (see figure 6). It also included
a web interface for Fremantle Council to remotely manage content and review logs.
When users with Bluetooth enabled mobile phones walked
within 30 meters they were asked if they would like to receive
historic information about the site. If they accepted, they
received an mp3 file with an audio dramatization of a letter
written by a Captain D.B. Shaw in 1892 describing Fremantle
as 'the worst damn hole I ever saw.'
The system was tested over several months during which the
InfoPoint detected an average of 600 distinct phones each day.
The installation highlighted issues related to long-term real-
world deployments. Only around 5% of users accepted the offer
to receive the digital content, showing a reluctance on the part
of users to download unsolicited content. There were also major
variations found in Bluetooth interfaces between mobile phone
models, and wide variations in familiarity with Bluetooth-based
interaction, with a strong generational bias.
Figure 6: InfoPoint Hardware
As can be seen, the InfoPoint prototype delivers rich media content to visitors' mobile phones,
providing a platform for research into mobile experiences and interactions, user-generated content
and system architectures. In the future the platform can be used to understand mobile phone
users' experiences of situated content, and to explore interfaces for managing this content, with a
longer term aim of exploring options for user-generated situated content.
5.3 Signpost
Signpost is an indoor navigation system, which takes advantage of associating locations with
markers, thereby providing an inexpensive, building-wide guide executing solely on the end

19
http://www.interactiondesign.com.au/
user’s camera-enabled mobile phone. While previous work on barcode-based location tracking,
such as applications relying 2D barcode such as the QR Code, rely on non real-time “snapshot”
processing, our approach continuously scans an environment in search for navigation hints. The
navigation therefore scales from sparse, strategically placed fiducial markers to continuous
navigation in 3D with AR overlays.
Pose tracking based on fiducial markers is a well established mechanism in AR. Unlike natural
feature tracking, it is highly robust and works well under varying lighting conditions.
Furthermore, efficient algorithms for detecting and estimating the pose of these markers exist,
making the approach highly suitable for devices with minimal processing capabilities such as
mobile phones. Although marker tracking systems can do 6 degree-of-freedom (DOF) pose
estimation, in Signpost we typically use only 3DOF to reduce the effort in creating a building
model (map), thus making the system more practical. Full 6DOF tracking can still be used for
advanced interaction mechanisms. Deploying our system to a new location consists of three steps:
Creating a map and database of marker locations, deploying markers on-site and finally making
the software available to potential users.
The mobile phone software activates the phone’s built-in camera and continuously scans for
markers at video frame rate. Since the phone is not a dedicated appliance, it was important to
achieve a performance allowing the phone to remain highly responsive without disrupting regular
cellular services.
Based on the technology presented in the previous section, we created a location based
conference guide, Signpost, which was deployed at several large trade conferences with
thousands of attendees. The application is designed to work with typically sparse tracking, so as
to limit deployed markers to a manageable number. The left image in Fig. 7 shows the location of
37 markers that were installed at the conference site in the Venetian Hotel Las Vegas, an area of
roughly 100x200m.

Fig 7. Left: Marker placement for Signpost2007 at the MEDC 2007 conference in an area of roughly
100x200 meters. Red dots mark locations of posters with instructions and markers. Right: Poster
with instructions and marker for tracking.
While the 6DOF tracking can deliver centimetre level accuracy when markers are tracked,
presenting only 2D location on a map reduces accuracy requirements considerably. This was
found important as conference organizers have to consider the logistics of deploying and
inspecting marker placement. The most efficient way that was developed after consulting
conference organizers was to stick markers onto poster stands which can be quickly deployed on-
site at pre-planned locations. The right image in Fig shows such a poster stand. The poster stand
also attracts attention and provides details on how to download the application from the local Wi-
Fi network.
The core function of Signpost is its combination of a conference calendar and a navigation
system. The conference calendar can be browsed using various filters such as per day, per session
or full text indexing. Live RSS updates from the Wi-Fi network make sure the latest changes are
reflected in the schedule. All calendar entries are linked to locations, so that the navigation
module can compute the fastest route from the current location (sampled from the last seen
marker) to the desired lecture hall. The results are displayed on a map that can be freely navigated
by panning, rotating and zooming relative to a marker or using phone hotkeys.
For large events in venues with multiple levels or buildings, a single map is no longer sufficient.
Signpost therefore supports multiple maps linked to a 3D overview, or alternatively an interactive
3D representation of the building showing the global geographic relationship of the current
location and the target location (Fig ).

Fig 8. Left: Switching between maps; Middle: 3D view of the building with the current user’s
location; Right: built-in Augmented Reality mini-game.
A built-in Augmented Reality mini-game challenges users with a treasure hunt. In this game, each
marker in the environment holds a specific 3D game object such as a company logo (see right
image in Fig ). The game objects only appear in the AR video view. A user managing to collect
all game objects may register for a prize drawing or win a free-bee such as a conference hat.

6. Next Steps
In this chapter we have described the concept of the AR 2.0 platform, and have also discussed
some early case studies that show technology that could be used to develop that platform.
However before AR 2.0 applications become commonplace there are an important number of
next steps that must take place. In particular important work needs to be conducted in the
following areas, among others; Localization and Registration, Applications, and User Evaluation.
6.1 Localization and Registration
In order to provide compelling AR 2.0 applications there is a need for research on better methods
for outdoor localization and registration. Early AR systems developed for outdoor use relied on
GPS for position measurements and magnetic compasses and inertial sensors for
orientation [Fei97, Hoe99, Bai01, Tho98, Pie01]. Recent examples, such as Nokia's MARA
project [Gre06] and Wikitude [Mob09] work on mobile phones and exploit the embedded
sensors, including GPS, accelerometers, and a compass. However, GPS is only typically accurate
to about 10 meters, creating large registration errors for virtual objects and its reliability
significantly deteriorates in urban environments due to shadowing from buildings. Indoor, the
GPS signal is usually unavailable. Similarly, inertial sensors are prone to drift and magnetic
sensors are disturbed by local magnetic fields encountered in urban environments.
Computer vision techniques can be used to overcome these limitations. These directly rely on the
image to be augmented, so the placements of virtual images can be accurate up to the pixel. The
camera pose is estimated by matching image features and minimizing the re-projection error of
these features in the image. This is an active area of reserach. The University of Cambridge has
demonstrated a fast edge-based 3D tracking algorithm [Dru99] and successfully applied it to
Augmented Reality in [Kle03] and [Kle04]. EPFL developed a feature point-based system that
matches points with reference images and also tracks feature points over time to prevent drift and
jitter [Vac03].
The recent developments of feature point descriptors such as SIFT [Low04] or SURF [Bay06a]
allow for fast matching of the captured image against a set of reference images. EPFL also
developed an approach called Ferns that is computationally more efficient but requires more
memory [Ozu07]. These techniques can be used for accurate, autonomous, and robust
initialization. These techniques have been tried in localization methods by matching captured
images against databases of geo-referenced images [Siv03, Nis06,Mob09b]. Some authors
demonstrated that techniques from this category perform relatively well with large datasets of city
landmarks [Phi07, Phi08]. However, these approaches require large amounts of memory, and are
not feasible on mobile devices.
Since both sources of information, image matching and geo-location sensors, one promising area
of research is to develop systems combining both sources. Reitmayr developed one of the first
handheld augmented reality devices that rely on a combination of edge-based tracking, inertial
sensors and GPS to perform robust and accurate 3D tracking in outdoor conditions [Rei06,
Rei07]. More recently, [Tak08] uses the SURF local descriptor and fast computation of near-
neighbor using kd-trees to match images. Real-time performance is achieved by running feature
extraction and matching on the client-side against a local database of features determined by the
current GPS estimate.
One of the main problems is that handheld devices such as mobile phones have limited
processing power, while computer vision algorithms typically perform heavy computations. So
more work needs to be conducted on developing computer vision tracking algorithms for mobile
devices. In 2003 the ARToolKit library was ported to Windows CE [Wag03] and creating the
first self-contained AR application on an off-the-shelf embedded device. This evolved into the
ARToolKitPlus [Wag07] and Studierstube Tracker [Wag08a] libraries. Most recently the first
natural feature tracking solution running at frame rate on mobile phones was developed. Wagner
et al. [Wag08b] modified the SIFT [Low04] and Ferns [Ozu07] approaches and created the first
real-time 6 Degrees-of-Freedom natural feature tracking system running on mobile phones.
6.2 AR 2.0 Application Areas
Once AR 2.0 hardware and software platform technology has been developed there is future work
that can be conducted in exploring possible application areas. Some of the possible application
areas include the following:
Personal city exploration: Users can create and browse recommendations, comments and hints
about tourist places, restaurants, bars and shops, and leave personal, user generated content
created by tourists and citizens for others in the community. This would form an ideal test-bed for
the usefulness of the interfaces for selecting and creating content, and system scalability.
Urban sub-culture: Providing tools for young people to express themselves creatively, such as
virtual graffiti, where the mobile phone can be used as spray can, city tagging with exciting
media, or video and image diaries that are related to a certain location. In this way a virtual
dimension is added to street art. It can also be used to mark cool locations and organise events.
Culture information: Professional content can be experienced for cultural highlights and sight-
seeing spots in the city. Cultural objects can be enriched by virtual media that explains its origin
and significance for the city. The accurate overlay of digital 3D reconstructions or adequately
historical images can simulate a view into the past. Users can contribute with their annotations,
post comments or recommendations.
Urban planning: Planned, virtual architecture can be viewed within the real environment of the
city. This provides a completely novel way in which architects and urban planners can visualise
and examine their visions. The same data can be kept open for the public to give interested
citizens the chance to comment on planned constructions.
Urban maintenance: People responsible for maintenance of the city infrastructure can retrieve
important status information on site, coordinate with other staff members and create and anchor
their own situation assessment and status reports. Here AR makes it possible to accurately mark
critical spots or objects and provide valuable annotations for an efficient and flawless handling of
maintenance or emergency cases.
6.3 User Evaluation
An important part of AR 2.0 development will be to evaluate prototype interfaces and provide
guidance to on-going application development. Evaluation methods for handheld augmented
reality applications are only beginning to emerge. Early examples are the evaluation of AR
Tennis [Hen06] and the Virtual AR Guide [Wag06b] applications. However, those tests were
performed with only small user groups in very formal test setups. In the future there will be a
need to move beyond the state of the art by developing novel methods for evaluating AR user
interfaces designed for large scale use, and social networking applications with many
simultaneous users.
Most of the published AR research has been on enabling technologies (tracking or displays, etc),
or on experimental prototype applications, but there has been little user evaluation of AR
interfaces [Dun07]. For example, in 2005 Swann et al. [Swa05] produced a literature survey
reviewing all of the AR research papers from leading journals and conferences and they found
that less than 8% had any formal user evaluation as part of them. Thus there is a need for
examples of user evaluations of AR applications and development of new methods for AR user
evaluation. The HIT Lab NZ has since then developed a report reviewing all of the known AR
user studies, again identifying key gaps in the research literature [Dun08]. One of the areas with
smallest amount of research is on evaluation of collaborative systems with only 10 out of total of
161 AR papers with user evaluations focusing on collaborative applications, or just 6% of all
known AR user studies. Our research will contribute strongly to this area by providing several
examples of user studies of collaborative AR applications that can be used as a guide for further
user studies by the research community.
There is research that needs to be conducted in the evaluation of the social network and
collaborative communities facilitated by the AR 2.0 platform. There has been many papers
published on evaluation of social networks on such topics as the effectiveness of social
networking visualization tools [Hen07, Tur05], social network user interfaces [Riv96], impact on
collaboration [McD03, Don99], and user behaviour in social networks [Acq06, Vie04] among
other topics. However there has been little previous work on user studies of location-based social
networking, such as [Bur04], and no work on the evaluation of augmented reality for location
based collaboration. Many of the evaluations of social networks have been focused on qualitative
methods such as user surveys and interviews, and not quantitative measures. There is a need to
conduct research in evaluation of augmented reality for location based collaboration and also
develop new evaluation methodologies that can be used by the broader research community for
these types of user studies.

7. Conclusions
In this chapter we have described the concept of AR 2.0. Augmented Reality technology has
developed to the point that it can be widely deployed on handheld devices and consumer level
hardware. Web 2.0 infrastructure and tools allow user generated content to be created and shared
with social networking communities. Combined together this allows us to create location based
AR experiences that can be enjoyed on a global scale.
Early case studies presented show the potential for using mobile phones for experiencing AR
content, for widespread deployment of AR applications and for supporting real world navigation
tasks. However these case studies have also identified important issues that need to be addressed
in terms of the user experience, installing applications and tracking user location.
In the future, before AR 2.0 applications become commonplace, there are important research
issues that must be solved in terms of device localization and registration, building demonstration
applications and user evaluation.

8. Acknowledgements
This work was sponsored partially by the Austrian Science Fund FWF under grant no. Y193 and
the Christian Doppler Laboratory for Handheld Augmented Reality. The authors would like to
thank Istvan Barakonyi for contributing many important ideas.

9. References
[Aar01] Emile Aarts , Rick Harwig , Martin Schuurmans, Ambient intelligence, The invisible future: the
seamless integration of technology into everyday life, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 2001
[Acq06] Acquisti, A. and Gross, R., Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and
Privacy on the Facebook. PET 2006, LNCS 4258, pp. 36-58, 2006.
[Azu97] Azuma, R. T., A Survey of Augmented Reality. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual
Environments 6, 4 (August 1997), 355 – 385, 1997.
[Bai01] Baillot, Y., Brown D. and Julier S., Authoring of physical models using mobile computers. In
Proc. of ISWC 2001, pages 39–46, 2001.
[Bar06] Barsky E, Purdon M. Introducing Web 2.0: social networking and social bookmarking for health
librarians. J Can Health Lib Assoc 2006;
[Bay06a] Bay, H., Tuytelaars, T., and Van Gool, L., SURF: Speeded up robust features. In Proc. of the
European Conference on Computer Vision, 2006.
[Bui09] BuildAR website:
[Bur04] Burak, A. and Sharon, T., Usage patterns of FriendZone: mobile location-based community
services. In Proc. MUM '04, vol. 83. ACM, New York, NY, 93-100. 2004.
[Che05] Cheverest, K., et al., Exploring Bluetooth based mobile phone interaction with the Hermes photo
display, MobileHCI05, 47-54, ACM Press, 2005.
[Deu09] Deusto Sentient Graffiti Project website: http://www.smartlab.deusto.es/dsg/
[Dod09] http://www.dodgeball.com
[Don99] Donath, J. S., Visualizing Conversation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4).
1999.
[Don08] Dongpyo, H., Looser, J., Seichter, H., Billinghurst, M., and Woontack, W. 2008. A Sensor-Based
Interaction for Ubiquitous Virtual Reality Systems. In Ubiquitous Virtual Reality, 2008. ISUVR
2008. International Symposium on, 75-78.
[Dru99] Drummond, T.W. and Cipolla, R., Visual tracking and control using Line algebra. In Proc. of
CVPR 1999, Ft. Collins, CO, USA, June 23-25, 1999.
[Dun07] Dünser, A., Grasset, R., Seichter, H., and Billinghurst M., Applying HCI principles to AR
systems design, presented at MRUI'07: Workshop at IEEE VR 2007, 2007.
[Dun08] Dünser, A., Grasset, R. and Billinghurst M., A Survey of Evaluation Techniques Used in
Augmented Reality Studies. HIT Lab NZ Technical Report TR-2008-02, 2007.
[Eag05] Eagle N., Pentland A., "Social Serendipity: Mobilizing Social Software," IEEE Pervasive
Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 28-34, Apr-Jun, 2005
[Fei97] Feiner, S., MacIntyre, B., Höllerer, T. and Webster, A.: A touring machine: Prototyping 3d
mobile augmented reality systems for exploring the urban environment. Proceedings of the First
International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC), pp. 74-81, 1997.
[Fia05] Fiala, M., ARTag, a Fiducial Marker System Using Digital Techniques, In Proceedings of the
2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
(CVPR'05) - Volume 2, pp. 590-596, 2005.
[Fri02] Friedrich, W.: ARVIKA - Augmented Reality for Development, Production and Service. In
Proceedings of International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR), pp. 3-4,
2002.
[Gog06] Goggin, G, Cell phone culture: Mobile technology in everyday life, Routledge, 2006.
[Gra05] Grasset, R., Looser, J., and Billinghurst, M. 2005. OSGARToolKit: tangible + transitional 3D
collaborative mixed reality framework. In Proceedings of the 2005 international Conference on
Augmented Tele-Existence (Christchurch, New Zealand, December 05 - 08, 2005). ICAT '05,
vol. 157. ACM, New York, NY, 257-258.
[Gre06] Greene, K.. Hyperlinking reality via phones. MIT Technology Review, Nov/Dec 2006.
[Gri02] Grimm P., Haller M., Paelke V., Reinhold S., Reimann C. and Zauner J., AMIRE - Authoring
Mixed Reality, The First IEEE International Augmented Reality Toolkit Workshop, Germany,
2002.
[Hen05] Henrysson, A., Billinghurst, M. and Ollila, M., Face to Face Collaborative AR on Mobile Phones.
Proceedings International Symposium on Augmented and Mixed Reality (ISMAR’05), pp. 80-89,
Austria, 2005.
[Hen06] Henrysson, A., Billinghurst, M. and Ollila, M., AR Tennis. ACM Siggraph, Boston, USA, ACM
Press, 2006.
[Hen07] Henry, N. and Fekete, J., MatLink: Enhanced Matrix Visualization for Analyzing Social
Networks. In Interact 2007, LNCS 4663, Part II, pp. 288-302, 2007.
[Hoe99] Höllerer, T., Feiner, S., Terauchi, T., Rashid, G. and Hallaway, D., Exploring MARS: developing
indoor and outdoor user interfaces to a mobile augmented reality system. Computer & Graphics,
23(6):779-785, 1999.
[Hoh99] Hohl, F., Kubach, U., Leonhardi, A., Rothermel, K. and Schwehm, M., Next century challenges:
Nexus—an open global infrastructure for spatial-aware applications, In Proceedings of
International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pp. 249-255, 1999.
[Jab09] http://www.urban-atmospheres.net/Jabberwocky/
[Kat99] Kato, H. and Billinghurst, M., Marker Tracking and HMD Calibration for a video-based
Augmented Reality Conferencing System, In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on
Augmented Reality (IWAR 99), pp. 85-94, USA, 1999.
[Kle03] Klein, G. and Drummond, T.W., Robust visual tracking for non-instrumented augmented reality.
In Proc. of ISMAR 2003, pages 113-122, Tokyo, Japan, October 2003.
[Kle04] Klein, G. and Drummond, T.W., Sensor fusion and occlusion refinement for tablet-based AR. In
Proc. of ISMAR 2004, pages 38-47, Arlington, VA, USA, November 25 2004.
[Klo07] Klopschitz, M. and Schmalstieg, D., Automatic Reconstruction of Wide-Area Fiducial Marker
Models, In Proc. of International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR'07), pp.
71-74, 2007.
[Lee04] Lee, G., et al. Immersive Authoring of Tangible Augmented Reality Applications. Proceedings of
the IEEE and ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality 2004. 2004.
[Low04] Lowe, D.G., Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. International Journal of
Computer Vision, 60, 2 (2004), pp. 91-110, 2004.
[Mac04] MacIntyre B., Gandy M., Dow S., and Bolter J. D., DART: A Toolkit for Rapid Design
Exploration of Augmented Reality Experiences, User Interface Software and Technology
(UIST'04), Sante Fe, New Mexico, 2004.
[McD03] McDonald, D. W., Recommending collaboration with social networks: a comparative evaluation.
In Proc. CHI '03. ACM, 593-600. 2003.
[Miz00] Mizell, D., Augmented Reality Applications in Aerospace, IEEE and ACM International
Symposium on Augmented Reality (ISAR'00), 2000.
[Mob09] Mobilizy, Wikitude – AR Travel Guide, Website: http://www.mobilizy.com/wikitude.php, visited
March 25, 2009.
[Mob09b]IST Mobvis, FP6-511051, Website: http://www.mobvis.org/, visited March 26, 2009.
[Möh04] Möhring, M., Lessig, C. and Bimber, C.. Video See-Through AR on Consumer Cell Phones.
Proceedings of International Symposium on Augmented and Mixed Reality (ISMAR'04), pp.
252-253, 2004.
[Nis06] Nister, D. and Stewenius, H., Scalable recognition with a vocabulary tree. In Proc. of CVPR,
2006.
[New06] Newman, J., Schall, G., Barakonyi, I., Schürzinger, A. and Schmalstieg, D., Wide-Area Tracking
Tools for Augmented Reality, In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Pervasive
Computing, 2006.
[Ore08] O’Reilly T. What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of
software http://oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news /2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html (accessed
Jul 2008).
[Ozu07] Ozuysal, M., Fua, P. and Lepetit, V., Fast Keypoint Recognition in Ten Lines of Code. In Proc.
of IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2007.
[Pat06] Patel, S.N., Rekimoto, J. and Abowd, G.D., iCam: Precise at-a-Distance Interaction in the
Physical Environment, In Proceedings of Pervasive 2006, pp. 272-287, 2006.
[Pie01] Piekarski, W. and Thomas, B. H., Tinmith-evo5 - An Architecture for Supporting Mobile
Augmented Reality Environments. In 2nd Int'l Symposium on Augmented Reality, pp 177-178,
New York, NY, Oct 2001.
[Pie04] Piekarski, W. and Thomas, B. H., Augmented Reality Working Planes: A Foundation for Action
and Construction at a Distance. In 3rd Int'l Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality,
Arlington, Va, Oct 2004.
[Phi07] Philbin, J., Chum, O., Isard, M., Sivic, J., and Zisserman A., Object retrieval with large
vocabularies and fast spatial matching. In Proc. of CVPR, 2007.
[Phi08] Philbin, J., Chum, O., Isard, M., Sivic, J., and Zisserman A., Lost in quantization: Improving
particular object retrieval in large scale image databases. In Proc. of CVPR, 2008.
[Pla09] http://www.plazes.com
[Rei06] Reitmayr, G. and Drummond, T., Going Out: Robust Model-based Tracking for Outdoor
Augmented Reality Proc. IEEE ISMAR'06, Santa Barbara, California, USA, 2006.
[Rei07] Reitmayr, G. and Drummond, T., Initialisation for Visual Tracking in Urban
Environments Proc. IEEE ISMAR'07, Nara, Japan, 2007.
[Riv96] Rivera, K., Cooke, N. and Bauhs, J., The effects of emotional icons on remote communication,
Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems: common ground, p.99-100,
April 13-18, 1996.
[Rum09] http://www.rummble.com/
[Sch06] Scheibe, M., Meissner, F.W., Tunbridge, I. Investigating clientless mobile phone interaction with
a Bluetooth public display, CS06-14-00, University of Cape Town, 2006.
[Sch08] Schmalstieg, D. and Wagner, D., Mobile Phones as a Platform for Augmented Reality. In
Proceedings of the IEEE VR 2008 Workshop on Software Engineering and Architectures for
Realtime Interactive Systems, IEEE, Reno, NV, USA: Shaker Publishing, 43-44, 2008.
[Sei04] T. Sielhorst, T. Obst, R. Burgkart, R. Riener and N. Navab. "An augmented reality delivery
simulator for medical training." In International Workshop on Augmented Environments for
Medical Imaging - MICCAI Satellite Workshop, 2004.
[Siv03] Sivic, J. and Zisserman, A., Video google: A text retrieval approach to object matching in videos.
In Proc. of ICCV, 2003.
[Sei03] Seichter, H., Araya, C., Ekasidh, C., Kamol K. and Walaiporn N., sketchand+, In CAADRIA
2003, 209-219. 2003.
[Son09] Eye of Judgement: http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/Games/THE_EYE_OF_JUDGMENT
[Spo99] Spohrer, J., Information in Places,” IBM System Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 602-628, 1999.
[Sut68] Sutherland, I., A head-mounted three-dimensional display. In Proceeding of the Fall Joint
Computer Conference. AFIPS Conference Proceedings, vol. 33. AFIPS, Arlington, VA., 757-
764, 1968.
[Swa05] Swan, J. E. and Gabbard, J. L., Survey of User-Based Experimentation in Augmented Reality,
presented at 1st International Conference on Virtual Reality, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2005.
[Sza98] Szalavari, S., Schmalstieg, D., Fuhrmann, D. and Gervautz, M., "Studierstube" - An Environment
for Collaboration in Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality - Systems, Development and
Applications, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 37-49, Springer, 1998.
[Tak08] Takacs, G., Chandrasekhar, V., Gelfand, N., Xiong, Y., Chen, W.-C., Bismpigiannis, T.,
Grzeszczuk, R., Pulli, K., and Girod, B., Outdoors Augmented Reality on Mobile Phone using
Loxel-Based Visual Feature Organization. In Proc. of the 1st ACM international conference on
Multimedia information retrieval, pp. 427-434, 2008.
[Tho98] Thomas, B. H., Demczuk, V., Piekarski, W., Hepworth, D., and Gunther, B., A wearable
computer system with augmented reality to support terrestrial navigation. In Proc. of ISWC’98,
pages 168 171, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, October 19-20, 1998.
[Tur05] Turner, T., Smith, M., Fisher, D. and Welser, H., Picturing Usenet: Mapping Computer-Mediated
Collective Action. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. 10(4), 2005.
[Vac03] Vacchetti, L., Lepetit, V., and Fua, P., Stable real-time 3d tracking using online and offline
information. IEEE Trans. PAMI, Vol. 26, Nr. 10, pp. 1385-1391, 2004.
[Vie04] Viegas, F. B. and Smith, M. A., Newsgroup Crowds and Author Lines: Visualizing the Activity
of Individuals in Conversational Cyberspaces, 2004.
[Wag03] Wagner, D. and Schmalstieg, D., First Steps Towards Handheld Augmented Reality. In
Proceedings of the 7th IEEE international Symposium on Wearable Computers (October 21 - 23,
2003). ISWC. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 2003.
[Wag06b]Wagner, D., Billinghurst, M. and Schmalstieg, D.. How Real Should Virtual Characters Be?
Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology 2006 (ACE 2006), 2006.
[Wag07] Wagner, D., and Schmalstieg, D., ARToolKitPlus for Pose Tracking on Mobile Devices. In Proc.
of 12th Computer Vision Winter Workshop (CVWW'07), pp. 139-146, 2007.
[Wag08a]Wagner, D., Langlotz, T. and Schmalstieg, D., Robust und Unobtrusive Marker Tracking on
Mobile Phones. In Proc. of ISMAR'08, pp. 121-124, 2008.
[Wag08b]Wagner, D., Reitmayr, G., Mulloni, A., Drummond, T.W. and Schmalstieg, D., Pose tracking
from natural features on mobile phones. In Proc. of ISMAR’08, 125-134, 2008.
[Wit08] Wither, J., Coffin, C., Ventura, J., and Höllerer, T., Fast Annotation and Modeling with a Single-
Point Laser Range Finder In Proc. ACM/IEEE Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality,
Sept. 15-18, 2008.
[Zha08] Zhang, L., Subramaniam, N., Lin, R., Raskar, R. and Nayar, S., Capturing Images with Sparse
Informational Pixels using Projected 3D Tags, In Proceedings of Virtual Reality Conference
(VR'08), pp. 11-18, 2008.