>eye tracking as a cursor Assuming it's accurate,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mBlgcnqttg

If it's accurate, of course it would work. Why wouldn't it?

>>61867341
thanks botnet!

>assuming it would work,would it work?

>brand new eye-tracking computer
>everything is setup
>install a video player (most people like vlc so I'll chose that)
>start the video
>looking around at the movie I'm watching, it's an action flick
>everywhere i look the cursor is on the fucking screen
>the status bar at the bottom won't go away because the cursor keeps moving

>two weeks later
>buy a second monitor to watch my movies on without the annoying cursor
>cursor tracker not working on this monitor, watching the movie is fine
>but cursor tracker is not working on this monitor so I have to use a mouse for it
>new problem arises
>on one monitor i can use tracking, but not the other
>there are only two solutions
>use the mouse for both and disable the feature entirely (depending on who rolls it out, Apple for example, it might not even be possible)
>get a tracker for the second monitor, reintroducing the vlc problem
no

>>61867488
>implying there won't be a super simple and quick way to toggle the tracking on/off

>>61867488
There are technologies that can already track your screen while playing video (like those dynamic contrast/sharpness botnets)

>>61867539
>implying people want an extra step to watch a movie
most normie are lazy shits who wouldn't dream of doing more than bare minimum to operate their machines or refuse to learn new features. Cortana, for instance, gets disabled by most people, or never used at all.
>captcha: select the sunglasses
now here's a proposal, it only works when you're using special glasses or maybe a headband or something

>>61867488
You know, assuming we're talking about MAGICAL FUTURE eye-tracking that doesn't miss. there'd be no reason at all to have a graphical representation of the cursor on the screen.

There could also be blink commands. Maybe a modal thing like vi: click mode, every blink is a click, close your eyes for half a second/blink twice or thrice quickly to switch modes into something else

and so on

>>61867634
you can't blink click because people HAVE to blink, and might blink when they don't want to.

>>61867607
>implying people want an extra step to watch a movie

What if it's 'blink twice with both eyes'

>>61867667
It's pretty easy to distinguish intentional blinks

>>61867327
As botnet, yes.

>>61867679
>get a small dust particle in eye
>accidently delete system32

This would be pure aimbot for FPS games.

>>61867488
you just don't get it, brainlet
just sneeze and the tracking stops

>>61867845

git gud

>>61867341
Holy shit that's actually really cool. The typing part was the really cool.

t. person who uses Linux daily

Isn't eye movement too jittery for that sort of thing?

>>61868255
I'm pretty sure the pupil does not move when you look at a single thing, and if there is a high precision enough mechanism to track pupils, we'd actually learn quickly how to use it in the best way, same same way people are horrible with a mouse at first, but quickly learn.

This is not theoretical, it's already been done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIuWA9Mourw

>>61868079
Hope it in some form makes its way to all OS soon. Really great accessibility feature.

>>61868255
You can control for that, much like most smartphone cameras control for natural hand shaking, although the technology used would be different, just an example of tech working around human nature.

>>61867327
>big titty ad
>automatically look at it because you can't not
>do you want to install bonzibuddy.exe? (y/y)

>>61868488
>Y/N
>titties on the Y button

>>61868546
( . Y . )

>>61867539
>implying it could ever actually get turned off

>>61867327
retarded shit to make you a slave.

nobody looks at what they're doing all the time. you will be a retarded autistic puppet. enjoy your dumb shit.

it would be amazing, keyboard and eyes only

people wouldnt use it due to the "youre now blinking manually" effect that would torture their souls

doesnt Stephen hawking use something like this?

>>61868853
do you ever click at something without looking at it, smart guy?