Even if I immediately accepted that a music stand would be sufficient for what might be a 20 lb technical manual, when placed on a platform that jostles and moves (as is visible in the video), that completely ignores the second half of what I noted.
I don't think it's overcomplicating an issue to look at a situation that appears to be sub-optimal and search for reasons why what appear to be simple solutions might not actually yield the benefits you would assume, because in real life, often they've been tried, and they don't. It could be Google is purposefully presenting an unrealistic scenario, or it could be that this large multi-billion dollar company hasn't bothered to optimize this integral process in this simple way, but when I see what appears to be an easily fixed problem in an unfamiliar area of expertise I prefer not to immediately assume everyone else that looked at the same scene wasn't capable of seeing what appears obvious to me.
Instead of a music stand, you could use a modified camera tripod or something -- I don't think that's too complicated. Anyways, point is a lightweight device capable of holding a 20LB binder isn't new technology -- you could probably buy some sort of off-the-shelf thingy for under $100 which would do it.
You're right -- you're not overcomplicating things so much as trying to give this video the benefit of the doubt. But it looks to me like the benefit of the glass is greatly exaggerated by having the binder with instructions be located off the platform. Obviously glass is a superior solution here, but not as much as presented IMO.
I think the question of where the binder is located is missing the forest for trees. Who wants a binder when you can have the information right in front of your eye? Especially when you've lugged binder #3 up there only to find it refers you to some spec in binder #2.
To be able to check the torque speck on a bolt while getting it started and tightening it up would be so nice.
Yes, the example video about the time going up and down the ladder is stupid - but I think tech like this has a huge future in shops and I'm sure a bunch of other work places.
I don't think it's overcomplicating an issue to look at a situation that appears to be sub-optimal and search for reasons why what appear to be simple solutions might not actually yield the benefits you would assume, because in real life, often they've been tried, and they don't. It could be Google is purposefully presenting an unrealistic scenario, or it could be that this large multi-billion dollar company hasn't bothered to optimize this integral process in this simple way, but when I see what appears to be an easily fixed problem in an unfamiliar area of expertise I prefer not to immediately assume everyone else that looked at the same scene wasn't capable of seeing what appears obvious to me.