3 ms·

All the “it’s not good enough” posts amaze me. As you said we’re still on 1.0. It hasn’t even been a week. I bet Apple can improve it without further hardware,

by MBCook 3y ago

All the “it’s not good enough” posts amaze me. As you said we’re still on 1.0. It hasn’t even been a week. I bet Apple can improve it without further hardware, let alone future versions. However I was wondering just how accurate this could get yesterday. Because of saccades the eye never really stops and just looks at one thing right? Which would mean we can never tell what someone is looking at, only the area of the eye is heavily focused around. Sort of a probability field. Just how small can we make that field and have it still feel accurate? Or does this introduce something of the “thumb“ problem on touchscreens where you have to just do your best to interpret what the user probably wanted?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
crooked-v 3y ago
So far with mine, it feels like fingertip size is about the smallest 'eye target' I can use for a close-up screen (think roughly the position of a held iPad) and still have 100% accuracy. I would bet that the limits of eye accuracy are the math basis of window resizing with push/pull movement, so that the accuracy rate remains the same for farther-away virtual screens.
rozab 3y ago
I believe eye tracking systems have been used for weapons targeting in F-35s for about 10 years. They wouldn't be using it for that usecase if it wasn't pretty accurate
- zarzavat 3y ago
  If you’re in a fighter jet and there’s an enemy aircraft you don’t need much encouragement to look at it, whereas with computers people look away from the UI element they are interacting with all the time, for example I’m typing on the iOS keyboard now but looking at the text. Also the number of objects in a fighter jet is going to be rather small so the radius for selection around each object can be large.
- MBCook 3y ago
  True. But an F-35 cockpit has more space for cameras/etc and a slightly higher price. I also suspect selecting from very close together (in your field of view) enemies isn’t a too common. On the other hand on a site like HN there are a ton of very small targets right next to eachother.

by MBCook 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

crooked-v 3y ago

So far with mine, it feels like fingertip size is about the smallest 'eye target' I can use for a close-up screen (think roughly the position of a held iPad) and still have 100% accuracy. I would bet that the limits of eye accuracy are the math basis of window resizing with push/pull movement, so that the accuracy rate remains the same for farther-away virtual screens.

rozab 3y ago

I believe eye tracking systems have been used for weapons targeting in F-35s for about 10 years. They wouldn't be using it for that usecase if it wasn't pretty accurate

zarzavat 3y ago
If you’re in a fighter jet and there’s an enemy aircraft you don’t need much encouragement to look at it, whereas with computers people look away from the UI element they are interacting with all the time, for example I’m typing on the iOS keyboard now but looking at the text. Also the number of objects in a fighter jet is going to be rather small so the radius for selection around each object can be large.
MBCook 3y ago
True. But an F-35 cockpit has more space for cameras/etc and a slightly higher price. I also suspect selecting from very close together (in your field of view) enemies isn’t a too common. On the other hand on a site like HN there are a ton of very small targets right next to eachother.