At the top of my ’shared item list’ in Google reader today was a short but interesting post on nano-technology in development which immediately caught my eye: The ‘Bionic Contact Lens’:
Makes “heads-up display” seem positively last century.
Though its far to early to say anything about the implications of this technology, I always get excited about anything that moves ‘visualisation’ away from the screen, operating in 3D space. Science fiction or not - the trend for ‘organic interfaces’ grows and is leaning heavily towards 3D, which is exciting news for everyone involved in something that could be seen as the prelude of ‘web 3D’.
Source: Are your eyes closed? Then you must be in the Metaverse | Shithappens
Posted on: March 28, 2008 | Share on:
Abhishek Saxena on 
Sophie on 
nic mitham
said on March 28th
great find. what an interesting story and clearly many many uses for this type of device. the only reservation i have is the reluctance of many people (myself included) to wear contact lenses.
Dave Elchoness
said on March 29th
Sign me up. I’m not sure the contact lens is the problem, I actually think it’s the powering up of the lens. Can powering up a lens like that damage the eye? If the lens really works and substantially alters how we think of eyesight, I think people will go for it as a relatively uninvasive tool. But you’d like to know if what’s fun today, may be lead to blindness tomorrow.
nic mitham
said on March 29th
you can have all the functionality in the world but if people are not prepared to wear the device then that’s the biggest problem in the world (for the device).
Dave Elchoness
said on March 29th
Agreed. But the contact lens industry has done OK over the past 40 or so years, hasn’t it? It’s not as if the contact lens is an alien device that won’t sell. Seems that contact lenses were worn by 32 million Americans (or 12% of the population) in 2002 (see http://www.eyetopics.com/articles/8/1/Contact-Lens-Statistics.html). So, my guess is that at least that many people in the US would consider the contact lens solution referenced in the article when you include both those with vision difficulties and those without vision difficulties (like me) who want to use the additional functionality. What these guys have to grapple with, it seems to me, is not so much the reluctance to wear a lens in the eye (which is not new), but concerns about how the eye will be affected by (i) power being directed to the lens and (ii) the introducing this new functionality to the eye and brain with the device.
Matt Simpson
said on April 1st
We had a great time discussing this on Dogear Nation, Episode 45 - http://www.dogearnation.com/2008/03/30/dogear-nation-episode-45-weve-got-email/
Hmmm… now if this comment would only submit…
Rick van der Wal
said on April 1st
Sorry Matt, this AJAX reply box having some difficulties it seems.
I think this is just one step too far ahead - the quite permanent lens without direct interface has as many risks as it has possibilities, but i was quite surprised it was already being developed. I’m still waiting for simple, comfortable ‘eye monitors’, like goggles, that don’t look to weigh a ton to hit the mainstream market. This just seems to illustrate the ‘lag’ between whats possible conceptually, can be made realistically, taken into production affordable(y) and be marketed commercially.