Hacker News Reader

Comment by metafunctor | Hacker News Reader

Yep, video conferencing still very much sucks. For starters, we need a video chat app that enables eye contact. I think it would be a big deal.

View on HN

You should take a look at https://catch-eye.com It's a plug-in on top of Skype that let's you make eye contact with the other person

Nice, thanks for the link, will definitely check this out.

If the cameras are above the screen, and the subject is far enough, the eye's angle doesn't matter much.

Why do you say that? It's quite easy to see that the person on the other end isn't making eye contact, even when they think they are, looking straight in your eyes. To me, it seems like they are looking at my tits or something. It matters quite a lot. Also, FPS and resolution.

There's a long, long way to go before video conferencing feels more like an actual face-to-face conversation, and it hasn't really changed much in the past 10 years.

I mean, the main complaint against remote work seems to be that there's still no substitute for an actual face-to-face conversation. That IS a tech problem that CAN be solved with tech. The current tech is woefully inadequate.

I say that because: depending on those factors (and some others like lense type, focus etc) the difference between the angle eye/screen and eye/camera is insignificant...

You just have to draw a schema to understand.

3 to 5 meters is a good distance for a video conference.

It's not insignificant. Humans are pretty good in determining whether someone is making eye contact or not. At 5 meters, we can easily detect a 10cm deviation in gaze direction [1].

Also, I'd like to be (or feel like I am) much closer than 5 meters when talking with someone.

[1] http://tachilab.org/content/files/publication/tp/imai200604P...

Interesting that you think it's insignificant. A lot of group photos are taken at 3 to 5 meters away and it's immediately obvious who's looking directly into the camera and who isn't...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com