The Augmented Space article discusses how data can be layered within physical space. Prior to the technological age, this was done with mostly visual ornamentation, by adding a level of symbolism to the space. With technology, visual ornamentation can constantly adapt and animate given stimuli, and other mechanisms of incorporating data are possible, like audio tours. The question then becomes how might the idea of augmented space incorporate itself into our public institutions. The author argues that public institutions should experiment and become innovators in augmented space, rather than far behind in technology as they currently are. While I certainly agree that most public institutions are far behind the times technologically (there were MANY microfilm readers at the Boston Public Library), the reason for this is not a lack of willingness to innovate, but a lack of resources to do so, as well as a higher prioritization of the institution’s other goals. The library’s function is to serve as a public resource for knowledge, preventing it from only reaching the elite. As computers have made knowledge more and more public, the limiting factor to accessing knowledge equitably has become access to computers. Therefore, it has adjusted by providing free access to computers to the public and people who need it. While it should keep up with the times, its primary goal is to provide its users with easy access to other knowledge. Too often, attempting to “innovate” in augmented technology leads to glitchy and ultimately useless spaces. Since the library plays a vital role for people, it should not waste its time and money on unproven methods. Augmented spaces have potential, but public spaces should not be running experiments on the people it is trying to help. Rather, they should focus on implementing current technologies well.