search

samuelgoto / arpub

AR Content Publishing
9 stars 0 forks source link

Temporal constraints and location restrictions #1

Closed samuelgoto closed 6 years ago

samuelgoto commented 6 years ago

How should we deal with artifacts that are only applicable within a certain time frame? Or within location restriction? Should these be composite landmarks? Or are they intrinsically different than landmarks and deserve a slot on their own in artifact?

The canonical use case for something along the lines of this are twofold:

  1. Promotions and events: one would want to anchor assets to landmarks within a specific date range (e.g. only on the fourth of July)
  2. Geofencing: one would want to make the distinction between certain areas and display things differently. For example, certain assets apply to cars in dealerships (e.g. comparison charts, reviews) versus on the street (e.g. general information, specifications).
skonig-google commented 6 years ago

The second absolutely seems like a composite landmark to me; it's the union of two landmarks (location and objects). For the first, I could see two ways to address this: one, punt. The web historically hasn't had a great way to handle temporal/expiring content, requiring explicit publisher action (e.g. take down page, change page content to reflect fact that the promotion has expired, etc.); it's not clear that we need to address this broader challenge just for AR. If we chose to address it for AR, we could add 'time' as a restriction, but I feel like this just pushes the problem elsewhere (e.g., crawlers now have to purge items from their index after it expires). I would lean towards punt.

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:52 PM sam goto notifications@github.com wrote:

How should we deal with artifacts that are only applicable within a certain time frame? Or within location restriction? Should these be composite landmarks? Or are they intrinsically different than landmarks and deserve a slot on their own in artifact?

The canonical use case for something along the lines of this are twofold:

  1. Promotions and events: one would want to anchor assets to landmarks within a specific date range (e.g. only on the fourth of July)
  2. Geofencing: one would want to make the distinction between certain areas and display things differently. For example, certain assets apply to cars in dealerships (e.g. comparison charts, reviews) versus on the street (e.g. general information, specifications).

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/samuelgoto/arpub/issues/1, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APftR74MRAARYGoMfb8V-zQSMPcBrA3iks5uIntngaJpZM4VZbQR .

mpsalisbury commented 6 years ago

I'll argue that Geofencing is not a composite landmark.

I think the landmark is the thing to which the asset is to be attached. In Sam's example, this is the cars, not the dealership. But the asset is only intended to appear when the car is near the dealership. That would be a restriction.

That said, I'd be fine with punting this as well.

samuelgoto commented 6 years ago

Our original formulation of CompositeLandmark isn't holding up very well, and was added without a concrete application that really tested its use. I think the formulation "landmark is the thing to which the asset is attached to" is holding up better and I'd be happy to use that as opposed to CompositeLandmark (i.e. the clarification of using restrictions in Artifact buys us removing the concept of CompositeLandmark which seems like a simple win).

Unless anyone opposes, I'll make edits to the original proposal to make that clarification point.

skonig-google commented 6 years ago

I think a single landmark + restrictions is fine.

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 2:57 PM sam goto notifications@github.com wrote:

Our original formulation of CompositeLandmark isn't holding up very well, and was added without a concrete application that really tested its use. I think the formulation "landmark is the thing to which the asset is attached to" is holding up better and I'd be happy to use that as opposed to CompositeLandmark (i.e. the clarification of using restrictions in Artifact buys us removing the concept of CompositeLandmark which seems like a simple win).

Unless anyone opposes, I'll make edits to the original proposal to make that clarification point.

— You are receiving this because you commented.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/samuelgoto/arpub/issues/1#issuecomment-411164744, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APftR7RBDvmghvi2vsCq2NUQuYayfyXZks5uOeMzgaJpZM4VZbQR .

samuelgoto commented 6 years ago

Done. Closing.

Feel free to take a look at the diff and lmk if I missed something or could make anything clearer. As I add more examples/tests/implementation, I'm sure we'll find bugs, but this should serve as a starting point.

https://github.com/samuelgoto/arpub/commit/8cc01a7e57c3c98f05341adffda1428abc165993