Hacker News Reader

Comment by orenlindsey | Hacker News Reader

To be fair, this is a 1.0 version of brand new software and hardware. By the time we get to visionOS 3.0, and maybe even before that, this will be gone.

View on HN

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

Let's hope we never do. Of course, there's very little hope but we all would be better off if this product didn't exist.

Let me quote Paris Marx's excellent summary from his Apple Vision Pro preview https://disconnect.blog/apples-vision-pro-headset-deserves/

> Tech companies want us isolated and constantly staring at screens because it drives profit

and of course

> The Vision Pro lets users further separate themselves from their surroundings and even create “digital personas” for video calls so other people are talking to a digital, abstracted version of themselves instead of seeing the real person.

Even The Verge acknowledges:

> using the Vision Pro is such a lonely experience, regardless of the weird ghost eyes on the front.

Of course it's Apple so it'll catch on and what in 1969 was predicted to happen in 4545 will happen, well, quite a few years earlier

: In the year 4545

...

: Nobody's gonna look at you

And of course https://img.ifunny.co/images/3461f2f61d0ac8385d0c1985ac41554...

We can always hope that Vision Pro turns into Glasshole 2.0.

I don’t think this will ever improve significantly (maybe a little bit with software tweaks) on AVP1 hardware.

The current algorithm is not terrible; it may be possible to improve the artifacting a bit but ultimately the rendering setup exists to cope with the resolution of the displays. The state of the art in cost-effective HMDs will need to advance a bit for this to really get “fixed”, as TFA notes.

It is telling that it took a very contrived test (a white grid of fine lines on black) for this to be obvious. Most things displayed by most users won’t run into this problem.

I agree that this thing is not yet monitor-replacement-level yet. I mostly just want it for watching movies in bed or on planes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com