Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does This Headline Know You're Reading It?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the eyes-up-here-bub dept.

Input Devices 140

An anonymous reader writes "Not yet, but it could. German artificial intelligence researchers are combining JavaScript with eye-tracking hardware to create 'text 2.0,' which 'infers user intentions.' Unimportant words also fade out while you're skimming the text, and a bookmark automatically appears if you glance away. It can pronounce the words you're reading, and reading certain words can trigger the appearance of footnotes or even translations, biographies, definitions, and sound effects or animations, almost like the truly interactive books in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age. 'With the help of an eye tracker, Text 2.0 follows your progress and presents effects just in time,' the researchers explain in a video. Meanwhile, DFKI has already created a free 'Processing Easy Eye Tracker plugin' (or PEEP) to manipulate windows with what they call 'gaze-controlled tab expose,' while there's speculation similar technology may be adopted by Apple. Apple has already purchased Tobii's eye-tracking hardware, and 'Whether these are for internal research only or for a future product, Apple is characteristically not saying.'"

cancel ×

140 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (4, Insightful)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 3 years ago | (#31587966)

Really? Is this really what we wanted??

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588160)

Corey Hart has the solution: "I wear my sunglasses at night ..." [youtube.com]

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588632)

I wear my sunglasses at night ...
Watch you weave then breathe your story lines

surprising how much of that song actually applies to this story

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31589666)

I've had the solution for a long time now.

From the bottom of every /. page: "Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on..."

Security and privacy before convenience every time.

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (1)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588200)

But this is slashdot, where people only read the headline! Who needs sophisticated AI to tell us that?

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588318)

You won't get away with just reading the headline when this comes around. The rest of the article will helpfully move itself to your center of vision and scroll by in a leisurely pace until you've read it all.
Version two of the software will then ask you questions from the article to make sure you really read and understood it.

Wrong link in summary (1)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588802)

The article summarized and quoted is not linked in the summary. The actual article here [hplusmagazine.com] .

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (3, Insightful)

Eladith (1365123) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588322)

Text that can understand the intentions of the reader and respond accordingly could be quite useful, for example by explaining some portion of text in more detail. Unfortunately intelligent enough content production system required for such is probably way harder to implement than ads that follow the reader's gaze.

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (1)

bynary (827120) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589034)

Isn't this what your brain is for? I'm being completely serious. Should we not train our brains to handle interpretation, context analysis, and calling up associated imagery? What are we accomplishing by having our text think for us?

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589396)

Oh, I'm sorry. I was daydreaming. What were you saying?

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589692)

Sheesh. A software system that can infer my intent? I can't even infer my own intent about half the time.

That's my wife's job.

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588484)

The implications are scary! Imagine: a porno that knows your jerking to it.

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (2, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588946)

Ah, Slashdot. How exactly did we come from a tech community always fascinated by new developments to this new shiny home of the technophobes? Nothing against a proper discussion about the pros and cons of a new subject, but why is every other thread these days swamped with mindless "Do not want!!", "Not going to work", "But I am a cross-eyed eskimo midget, this won't work for me so it is shit" and more and more and more crap like that. Yeah, I get it for this specific discussion - cat and STDIN/STDOUT is all a real man needs to handle data. I'll get off your fucking lawn now.

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (3, Interesting)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589174)

eye tracking is cool, but the description of this use of it sounds lame. Most of this functionality already exists in the user's head. I already form visions of what i'm reading. i already ignore words that i am not looking at. The bookmark part when i look away sounds mildly useful, but the rest sounds like the kind of overzealous anticipatory systems we have today.

my iphone constantly switches to landscape if i so much as pivot while looking at it, but refuses to flip when i legitimately turn it. Predictive text and autocompletion on my phone and in office suites screw me constantly by replacing legitimate words with what the application thinks i really meant. I'm leary of any computer system that tries to anticipate my desires or predict my actions. To my experience they are usually wrong and a hinderence more than a help.

That said, i do think eye tracking is cool. And i don't know what this research will ultimately yeild. If they discover that this paradigm sucks, it's time well spent.

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (2, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589280)

See, that is what I meant - this is good. These are arguments, this is what I come here for. And I agree, especially with your last paragraph. Yes, most of the current anticipatory systems do indeed suck. But as you said, the paradigm isn't tested to the end, and with improving predictive power, it might become a very useful concept. Ahh, well, it might be just my nostalgia, but I have the feeling that we are blanketed with one-liner brainfarts these days, drowning most of the informed discussion.

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588948)

I can't wait for this technology because I LOVE being bombarded with ads! Only a cranky old Luddite wouldn't welcome our new advertising overlords.

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (1)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589168)

The auto-bookmark when you look away might be nice, but dimming text you're not looking at that second is just plain stupid.

Re:In Soviet Russia Webpage reads you? (1)

bynary (827120) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589230)

Absolutely not. Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like having to look things up on my own. This seems like the logical progression of Clippy, "It looks like you're trying to read some text. Would you like help with..." God help us all.

Duct tape (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31587982)

/problem

Re:Duct tape (2, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588026)

/problem

I think your right on this, but we may need to crowd source the job of finding these German researchers in order to apply the Duct Tape so they don't ever do this sort of research again.

Re:Duct tape (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589488)

Duct tape on the camera, or tape your eyelids and eyeballs wide open so the camera can't see normal movement?
Or duct tape googly eyes all over your face?

In the immortal words of cats and dogs everywhere. (3, Interesting)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 3 years ago | (#31587992)

DO NOT WANT.

Damn it, I guess this webcam built into my laptop has suddenly been rendered damned near completely useless.

No comment. (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#31587996)

The headline requested your interaction but as of post time has received no comment.

It can only work if everyone has a webcam (3, Funny)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588008)

This only works if everyone has a webcam that is sending feedback to the website. I can see how everybody on slashdot would like that.

Re:It can only work if everyone has a webcam (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588548)

Not necessarily the website, it need only feed to an application in your computer. The directed content would come from an outside source, but the camera feed itself does not have to leave the room. It's basically a glorified mouse. In fact the only information that would be of any use to spiders would be the metadata interpreted by the application, so the expense of a full video feed wouldn't be worthwhile. Cheers to being unimportant!

It's still very creepy and I wouldn't ever use it, but it's not as bad as one might initially think. There are positive aspects that could develop from it, but it's also a magnet for all sorts of abuses. I can already imagine pop-up ads that follow my eyes around... that one's inevitable.

Re:It can only work if everyone has a webcam (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588876)

Yeah, I was oversimplifying. However, once it was set up on your computer, how would you know what it was transmitting (you know there would be regular updates to the software)?

Re:It can only work if everyone has a webcam (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589242)

Webcams aimed at Slashdot users?
Who would like that, exactly, and why?

This will do wonders ... (3, Insightful)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588012)

For porn :/

Re:This will do wonders ... (2, Funny)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588074)

Hopefully it will fade out the irrelevant parts of the porn that I'm not paying attention to. This could make my jerking off twice as productive! (/sarcasm)

Re:This will do wonders ... (3, Insightful)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588316)

Or it could prove you're gay because you keep glaring at cock.

Re:This will do wonders ... (1)

madpansy (1410973) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588724)

All men are gay, it's just to what extent...

Ron White [youtube.com]

Re:This will do wonders ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588892)

Or it could prove you're gay because you keep glaring at cock.

You don't need a webcam for that, just check the useragent string to see whether they're running safari on OS X.

Re:This will do wonders ... (1)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588466)

I think it would more likely be used to screw website owners out of advertising revenue. Now, instead of advertisers paying per impression (which they already pay a ridiculously low rate for), they can pay by how many users actually look at the ad. I can see it now:

Website owner: Your ad showed up 200,000 times on my site this month, so you owe me $1.50.
Advertiser: Sorry, but our stats show that only 20 of those users actually looked at our ad for more than the 2 second minimum, so we only owe you 15 thousandths of a cent. Don't spend it all in one place.

No it won't (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588036)

You'd have to have the web cam turned on. Who in their right mind leaves the web cam on while surfing the web?

Re:No it won't (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588174)

If I had a lazy eye, I'd leave it on just to mess with the automated eye-tracker.

Re:No it won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588624)

I do. And I will.

Up next: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588076)

Do-what-I-mean key. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer static displays without movement when I am reading. Unless this technology really does what I mean, they better make it so that I can turn it off.

Do companies pay attention to details (3, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588100)

Yet another product that will fail. I am cross eyed no surgery will ever be able to straighten my eyes out enough for a computer to track corectly. Let alone what happens if you wear glasses. The refraction or in some cases polarized lens and bifocals will throw such setups into disarray.

What hapens if more than one person is looking at the screen? I forgot who but some one recently made camera with motion sensing that couldn't detect black people in less than perfect lighting. What happens if some is wearing a colored contact lens? Will that throw the system off?

These lab tests always seem to fail in the real world.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588306)

Not forever.

I mean, look at computers. Who wants to replace and monitor all those vacuum tubes... and the noise of the rotating drums...

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588346)

Not really, I mean, not a lot of people have eye problems, or wear glasses, I mean sure it's a big percentage but still not big enough to discourage further research. The problem is privacy, not backing or something else, if Google or any other advertising giant would think they could get away with it, money would start pouring.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588396)

Well, it might fail right now, but just look at how far OCR and voice recognition have come. It'll get there eventually.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589248)

OCR isn't bad, however I have yet to find a viable voice recognition software. it either does okay but then things like sneezes and coughs duplicate random words, or it doesn't work at all as it is too sensitive and one person with a sore throat doesn't sound enough like themselves healthy to work.

I laugh every-time i see someone pick up their phone and say one name into it 4-5 times and think how cool it works.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (2, Interesting)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588400)

These lab tests always seem to fail in the real world.

True, but the concept is still pretty cool! What if you apply it to something else, like a "smart" book? What if the text automatically changes the appearance so that people with eye problems won't need to wear their glasses or will be able to read when even their glasses couldn't help. Those "details" you speak of are actually details. As a product, in its current state, Text 2.0 will fail... but don't forget, there are still many people with lots of money out there who are interested in these weird projects. All one has to see is the potential of a product, not the product its self.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589162)

I have two different lens each with a different prescription. that is pretty standard. unless they are wearing 3D glasses with each eye receiving it's own version of the text it is useless, and to do that you need special glasses that won't work for anything else.

  there is no potential as I have a lazy eye, one eye is always pointing in the wrong direction if you look at it, however for me i see straight ahead, So even if I calibrated a device for me, someone else using my laptop would have to spend five minutes adjusting the settings to even look over my shoulder.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588608)

Easy fix - exterminate all non-conformists. We've been looking for the right excuse for decades. There will be an unmarked van to pick you up shortly.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589628)

None of the unmarked vans were stopping.
But, being a non-conformist, I stopped the next one, drove it to the river, and put a rabbit on top of it. I'll be waiting in the hammock when I get back to it from this coffee shop.
Hey, you. Yeah, you. You're not supposed to read this. Move your eyeballs along.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (2, Funny)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588686)

These lab tests always seem to fail in the real world.

Until they succeed.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31589178)

Easy solution, calibration software. Just like track pads have.

Re:Do companies pay attention to details (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589364)

Actually, it could be a lot nicer and less obtrusive than trackpad calibration.

If the technology just operates in passive mode for a while, it will know from time to time where the user's probably gazing, just from GUI operational data. Dialog boxes with Yes/No buttons draw the eye, and when the user is mousing at them, it's a fair bet that the user is also looking at them. This gives the software an "expected" range of coordinates where a user might be looking, webcam data notwithstanding.

An adaptive eye-tracking system should learn from its lazy-eyed user, that the left eye's gaze is localized with 70% more reliability than the right, or whatever. Likewise, it should be able to figure out, over time, what "reading through bifocals" looks like. It should only offer tracking-dependent services when it's started measuring a sufficiently high correspondence between eye-tracking results and the "expected" results.

Nothing "2.0" (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588104)

Is it just me, or am I the only one who won't use it just because they used the hackneyed "2.0" thing?

Come on, even a clumsy forced acronym like "READ IT" (READable Interactive Text) would be more explanatory, and wouldn't date it at circa 2010 for the rest of its product life.

Re:Nothing "2.0" (3, Funny)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588256)

It's just you. The rest of us won't use it because it's a bad idea.

Re:Nothing "2.0" (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588442)

Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of Web tech in this country. The Web 1.0 was the Web to own. Then the other guy came out with a Web 2.0. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the Web 3.0. That's three point zero with parallel synergetic AJAX. For multimedia. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to Web 4.0. Now we're standing around with our keyboards in our hands, selling Web 3.0 with AJAX. Multimedia or not, suddenly we're the chumps. Well, fuck it. We're going to Web 5.0.

Sure, we could go to Web 4.0 next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe. Let's make a heavier javascript library and call it the ZQuery. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!

You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the Web versioning game.

What part of this don't you understand? If Web 2.0 is good, and Web 3.0 is better, obviously Web 5.0 would make us the best fucking Web that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the Web game by clinging to the Web 2.0 industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, Web 5.0 is the biggest chance of all.

Re:Nothing "2.0" (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589390)

My company is called "Web n+1" and it will thrive for a thousand years.

Re:Nothing "2.0" (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589502)

I want my Web 5.1, with subtext in addition to the usual hypertext.

This sounds excellent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588120)

in combination with a bit of tape.

Could work great with glasses (1)

pegasustonans (589396) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588144)

A great application for this would be as an overlay on glasses.

If I could get on-the-fly translations of shop-signs and menus projected on to my glasses, it would be awesome.

I could also see this as the next powerpoint whizz-bang animated presentation tool, and that doesn't make me quite as happy...

Re:Could work great with glasses (2, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588224)

If I could get on-the-fly translations of shop-signs and menus projected on to my glasses, it would be awesome.

No - it means you'll always look at the trnaslations and never learn what the underlying words were.

Also, their "skimming" thing is not going to work at all for speed-readers, or people who read out-of-sequence.

Re:Could work great with glasses (1)

pegasustonans (589396) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588282)

No - it means you'll always look at the trnaslations and never learn what the underlying words were.

On the contrary, it means I'll pick up languages that much quicker since I'll have a ready translation of everything in the environment without needing to manually reference the dictionary.

Of course, they would need cameras essentially pointing both outwards and towards the eye, as well as the storage and processing capacity to perform OCR and translation on images. Still, it's nothing that a few years of Moore's law can't solve.

Re:Could work great with glasses (1)

justhatched (1291470) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588954)

Not so sure, reading with progressive glasses makes people move their heads instead of using their eyes as anything off centre is blurry due to the vertical variable lens strength, so neither the tracking or the projection onto the glasses would not work well in this instance.

on the other hand... (1)

notgm (1069012) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588154)

this would lead to great practical jokery when two webcam feeds get swapped. hey, that's not what i'm looking at! whoa, whoa, whoa!

Awful (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588182)

I don't want to be tracked on how I'm reading something and skimming isn't always the best thing but to then fade out words they think that don't matter is just bad, imo, and some times those seemingly irrelevant words can change the context of things.

Re:Awful (1)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588338)

and some times those seemingly irrelevant words can change the context of things.

That's why it is faded and not completely eliminated. If you're looking for a certain part of the document, this has the potential to be quite useful. Also, as I've stated and read way too many times on slashdot, just because you think something is useless doesn't mean a use cannot be found.

A useful tool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588192)

I'm going to set mine to always dim the words ambidextrous, quagmire, and porcelain.

Re:A useful tool! (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588882)

Configuration complete. This is a test...

So now you can be ambidextrous as you navigate the porcelain quagmire.

Did it work?

No But If You Keep Posting These Idiotic Stories (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588226)

I'm going to rip your servers out of their cage!!!!!

Does that answers your stupid fucking question?

Yours In Vladivostok,
Kilgore T.

Serious invasion of privacy (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588228)

All they need to do is show an attractive male and female swimsuit model and measure which one my eyes spend more time on, and they've pretty reliably established my sexual preferences.

Re:Serious invasion of privacy (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588358)

And for an added bonus, the software can tell you if you're a breasts man or a legs man.

As Seinfeld once said: why would I want legs? I've got legs.

Re:Serious invasion of privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588826)

I'm an ass man, you insensitive clod!

I have a lazy eye! (1)

Spectre (1685) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588230)

Seriously, does the software understand the differences between:

Reading an article but being distracted by the ad on the side of the page
Reading an article but being distracted by the redhead walking by
Reading an article but I have a lazy eye that doesn't track
Reading an article but my ADD kicks in and ...

Re:I have a lazy eye! (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589422)

Psst. Hey.

You forgot to finish your reply.

Done before (1)

whitedsepdivine (1491991) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588248)

Hasn't this been done somewhere for security. IE: only what your eyes are looking at are in focus. Therefore anyone looking over your shoulder wouldn't be able to read a paragraph on your screen.

Not in a meeting (1)

sanche (98750) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588262)

Sounds like it could get a lot of us in trouble. I'm picturing "important" meetings where I'm called into the boss' office to give an opinion on something. No more sitting down in front of his screen and practicing my "oh yeah, that's great" voice.

Will be combined with advertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588272)

Because BUY COCA COLA at the moment people often don't even look at advertisements and may even BUY COCA COLA mentally block out areas of the screen such as sidebars and banners. With this technology, advertisers can require BUY COCA COLA that whenever someone is reading a text and not looking BUY COCA COLA at advertisements at all then every five minutes the words that you are a few milliseconds away from BUY COCA COLA reading will change to reflect an advertising message.

Re:Will be combined with advertisement (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588326)

I don't know why but after reading your post I feel a sudden urge to go buy a Pepsi.

That dictionary thing is a good idea. (1)

blai (1380673) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588276)

Everything else seemed like a b!tch. I wouldn't want words to come fading in and out, pictures appearing only if I stare at a word (new Google Adsense?), or compound words splitting just because I paused for a while. No.

Do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31588310)

Seriously, I'm already annoyed by those "auto-linkers" which put those stupid mouseover bubbles links on semi-random words on some websites, I don't need more tech that tries to "help me" read content.

Bad presentation! (1)

gaggle (206502) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588350)

Is it just me or is that just a horrible video? Especially for Slashdotters.. If they would simply recut it, showing each of the useful features (bookmarking, skimming, translation, read-aloud) it would have made me interested. It sounds like a cool research project but right now the smarminess of the video has me running for the hills.

(And what's with the first link? Seems to be to some totally different topic, but maybe that's my bad for trying to read the article)

Advertisments (1)

Joeseph64 (1538923) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588372)

The first thing I thought of with this is how annoying the advertisements on websites that use this will be... Just imagine, the ads can then *always* be in your viewing area! *shudder*

I don't want this for web sites. (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588384)

I want this for my MOUSE. No, seriously. I'd pay decent money for this.

If the tracking gets that good, you could put three buttons just below the spacebar:

  - Left Click
  - Track
  - Right Click

When I push the TRACK button, I want the cursor to go where I'm looking. Then I can click on the right or left mouse buttons as desired, and even hold the mouse button to select, etc.

The reason I would want a "Track" button is to keep the thing from tracking the cursor with my typing all the time. That would drive me as batty as the suggested application of this tech.

I suppose you could do a right-wink/left-wink thing as long as you made it so the eye needed to be closed for longer than an ordinary blink, but having. :)

Re:I don't want this for web sites. (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588404)

but having.

Allow me to complete that sentence.

But having everyone in the office winking and blinking all the time just opens the door for unpleasant visits from HR for harassment.

The headlines become self aware.... (1)

oscarwumpus (1637213) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588464)

...and we are all slapped with sexual harassment lawsuits for staring at the headlines' tits. Starting now, I am going to only read internet postings with crossed eyes: take that, technology!

Text 2.0? (2, Funny)

rugatero (1292060) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588500)

Text has been around for over 7000 years, and we're only now approaching version 2.0? And people thought Debian had a long release cycle...

Sweet! (1)

olau (314197) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588556)

Obviously, these are various ideas that may not turn up to be useful in practice. But it shows that an e-reader has the potential to actually enhance the reading experience as opposed to just being a less heavy version of the book. That's just amazing!

Regardless, I liked the fade-out-fill-words idea. I want a button for that in my browser!

PS: To all the nay-sayers: this is research (DFKI is a German research instution), it's not some company trying to sell you a product. Give them some slack.

The Help Desk Tickets (1)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588604)

"We got this new Text 2.0 and stuff and now my computer crashes every time I look at it. Like, seriously. Every time. I think I have a virus."

Twitchy (1)

swm (171547) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588610)

I want web pages to stand still unless I type or click.

GUIs that respond to mouse position alone, with
- pop ups
- hover text
- raise/lower windows
- flashes or color changes
make me mental.

A GUI that responded to my eye movements...<shudder>...

Oh, no (4, Funny)

physburn (1095481) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588688)

onLookAway(
popUp( "you looked away from this messages; please look back");
playSound("annoyingBleep.mid");
setPicture("porno_woman.jpg");
);

onLookAt( popUp(" Please click the link");
playSound("click+click+click.mid");
setPicture("Advert.jpg");
);

---

It will happen It will happen, save us

---

Internet Advertising [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Re:Oh, no (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588904)

I was going to take it one step further:

You can view the text of this article after you've looked at the Advertisement for 30 seconds.

No. I mean it. No. (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588770)

I want the text. The FRAKKING TEXT. Please.

I don't want to go to a link for an overview of some cool product, hardware, or process, and get a VIDEO. that I can't skim, can't read quietly at my desk, can't even read at lunch because it is too noisy to hear the soundtrack.

The Web 2.0 is going frakking nuts over features. When do we get the next .com bubble burst so we can get rid of these people?

And this idea has NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PREFERENCES. It has everything to do with tracking my eyeballs and figuring out how to manipulate me even better than they do now.

I know it's retro, but most of the time, when I'm reading something, EFFECTS get in the way. Just give me the text.

And I want it when I want it. Think you can predict when I'm bored? It won't be a hard decision for you if this crap comes to my screen. You'll sense I'm bored about 12 seconds in, and I won't change until I navigate way from your junk.

Arrghhh.

Why read... (1)

Sir Holo (531007) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588796)

Unimportant words also fade out while you're skimming the text...

So... if text is fluffy... then why would you read it?

Isn't column-filling text an artifact of the pre-internet age?

Gentlemen... (1)

derfy (172944) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588884)

We are one step closer to this: http://xkcd.com/462/ [xkcd.com]

YAY! more possibilities to accidentally do things! (3, Insightful)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588898)

I already hate when webpages open menus, just because I moved my mouse over them (and not even a damn delay - they open instantly, god damn it!) and I also hated mouse gestures, because I don't want the OS to interfere with what I'm doing, just because I coincidentally moved the mouse in a certain way...

that's why I think this (and also the mind-writing from earlier today) are very very VERY bad ideas... some people might find them exciting, but that's just people who haven't been around computers long enough to know all the (similar) bad ideas, that already existed before...

The mouse (1)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 3 years ago | (#31588968)

Not that it would detect everyone, but I do feel like I tend to move the mouse close to a story I'm reading.

If you could tell the story closest to the middle of the page you might be able to infer it from scrolling as well. I tend to read about 1/3+ down the page. My head naturally rests so that I have to look up a bit to look at say the "slahsdot" logo on this page.

Jitter (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589134)

Unfortunately I can no longer find the source, but I seem to recall that jitter makes this pretty unworkable: that is, human eyes are almost never absolutely, 100% still. And when they do move, it is not necessarily to an exact point, but rather to a general area/region of a certain size.

Found this when I was looking for a way to make eye-tracking window focus changes because I was tired of typing into the wrong window ;)

All that said - TFA points to the thought controlled computing article source, and I can't (won't) view video at work -- maybe TFV addresses this?

Finally! No more skipping my EULAs! (1)

seanonymous (964897) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589366)

From now on, all of those 30 page documents that you click through can make sure you read every last word of themselves. How fantastic!

I work in eye tracking for research (1)

comp.sci (557773) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589498)

and text has to be pretty large for this to function adequately. Tracking progress through a text, sure - but the current state is that we can't tell EXACTLY where the user is looking (the size of the red dot in the video is extremely misleading). We can narrow it down to about the size of a quarter on the screen. Likely not enough for "on the fly translations" of single words but definitely enough for some simpler things (like tracking which ads you're looking at).

AI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31589510)

You want to engage the user? You want heroines gamers will care about? Two words: eye contact.

We see what we do not look at (1)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589576)

... will fade out text you aren't reading...

No no no hell no. Just because I'm not looking at the text doesn't mean I'm not reading it. Humans have this thing, see, it's call periphery vision.

The PS3 does this (as of it's latest "upgrade"). It presents you with a list of items-- say menu options, or a list of songs you've loaded. Then, after a few seconds, it FADES OUT all options that aren't highlighted. So if you want to see all the options at once, you have to to constantly jog the cursor up and down. (And to make it even more annoying, if the title of the option is longer than the display width, it'll start to autoscroll after a delay-- and that delay is longer than the fade-out delay).

Darn ! The emails of my girlfriend (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589584)

...will KNOW whether or not I read that remark of hers about going shopping together.

Seriously, though: (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 3 years ago | (#31589608)

I DON'T want to be treated as a frakkin' pair of eyeballs, dammit !
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>