Talk:Eye tracking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


saccade? --Abdull 14:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Military use? im sure that the WAH-64 (Apache) has eye tracking for the gunner....if you look at the helmet,it has a section which comes up and covers the eye,and,if you watch a video,as he moves his head,the 30mm follows his head,if not his eyes.should military be included on these lists?Pikajedi3 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There is another interesting HCI-use described here: An Alternative to the Computer Mouse (in "Technology Review"). These eye-tracking techniques ("EyePoint" etc.) should be combined with speech recognition. Instead of one or even several "hot keys" spoken commands should be used. It would not be too difficult to discern between a couple of words. Christian Storm 14:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I removed most of the external links because they violated WP:EL, WP:SPAM, or both. There was also a reference to a general commercial site which is spam and a dubious source per WP:V. I left the link, though I'd have no quarrels if someone chose to remove it too. I think it would be beneficial to have some links to more studies or explanations of eye tracking, if someone can find some that are appropriate. --Ronz 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links? --Tracker11 10:42, 8 December 2006

All of those external links feature a product called tobii, their are a lot of other great eye tracking products on the market, how come you have 3 links featuring only this product? It would seem less like your spamming this product if you had links to eye tracking papers or research using some different products.

I don't appreciate your accusations of bias. The links were there already. I didn't put any of them into the article. I just removed the ones I though were in violation of the guidelines and policies mentioned. Do you understand these guidelines? Do you have any differences of opinion on how I interpret them? Why so much concern about eye tracking products, and so little concern about wiki policies? --Ronz 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So you agree that the 3 links are promoting 1 commercial eye tracking product? Tracker11 12:23, 8 December 2006

No. I say you're ignoring the facts and wiki policies. --Ronz 15:29, 8 December 2006
I find this very interesting that a wiki admin would defend 3 obvious WP:EL & WP:SPAM violating links. Why are you protecting these links Ronz, they are all pointing towards the same commercial product? --Ractin 00:10, 9 December 2006
Read the above. What admin are you talking about? Please state your case for them violating WP:EL & WP:SPAM. I don't appreciate your accusations of bias. I say it's coincidence. --Ronz 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How come all the external links point towards the same eye tracking system? Surely their are better non-commercial links that are not just pumping propaganda to sell a particular product. Why don't you just change the links to sites that don't promote an eye tracking products Ronz? Btw it sounds like your heavily biased towards keeping those particular links. --Frakny12 08:10, 10 December 2006

I've explained myself in the comments above. You might want to read them, as well as WP:CIVIL, WP:AFG. I don't appreciate the accusations of bias. --Ronz 16:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The first external links has multiple links to the offending products commercial site WP:EL (Links mainly intended to promote a website) its violating a couple other rules on WP:EL as well. I think that it is also in violation of WP:SPAM(Advertisements masquerading as articles) and it should be removed. I also feel like your using the rules and your knowledge of wikipedia to keep these links on the eye tracking page.--Tracker11 09:19, 11 December 2006
The first link is to uxmatters. The article has some links in it as you describe. There's nothing wrong with linking to an article that has other links in it. The guideline about "Advertisements masquerading as articles" refers to wiki pages themselves (or sections of wiki pages), not to the pages referenced from external links. I appreciate you're discussing this, though you're still not assuming good faith. --Ronz 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
So you agree that the links are mainly intended to promote a website?--Tracker11 09:19, 11 December 2006
No. The external links reference articles that I feel adhere to wiki policy and guidelines. I'm trying to explain my reasoning. Sorry if you're confused. --Ronz 05:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not confused you're using wiki to promote a commercial eye tracking system, If you weren't then you wouldn't be protecting these 3 links that are in breach of WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Tracker11 10:39, 12 December 2006
Please explain how they violate WP:EL and WP:SPAM. You might also want to read WP:AGF. --Ronz 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to move this discussion to light not heat: Perhaps we can look at each of the three current links and see how each one measures up under WP:EL and WP:SPAM, and then see if they are redundant of each other. I'll do each one separately for separate comments and comment threads as needed, and then look at the articles in toto. Other people who have problems with these links -- Tracker11, Frakny12, and Ractin -- if you have additional information, please add it, so we can evaluate these links. --LQ 15:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Introduction to Eyetracking - The article talks about eyetracking in general, and uses the tobii system to illustrate how an assessment system works. It doesn't on its surface appear to violate WP:EL or WP:SPAM. Looking at the source of the article, it's published on a site, UXmatters, that describes itself as a "volunteer-driven, nonprofit Web magazine" on user experience (UX) issues. The editors and contributors all appear to come from a variety of different professional affiliations, so it looks like an independent publication, and not the publication of a company pushing a product. I think this article, standing alone, is fine for the EL section. --LQ 15:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Eyetrack III - The article in question doesn't mention the "tobii" product as alleged above. This link is offered by "Poynter Extra" which is an online publication offered by a 501c3 journalism school. The article is part of a series of articles and material relating to a study done by the Poynter Institute, another journalism group which looks very academically nonprofit and utterly noncommercial (the Estlow Ctr for Journalism & New Media), and a commercial company, Eyetools, which is actually the company that offers the tobii product. It looks like a public/private partnership kind of issue and it's not uncommon for those kinds of things to have some benefits for the private sponsor. It's part of a whole workshop/publication, so the link actually helps people find more information than just in the article, and the information is largely noncommercial. Standing alone, this seems okay. --LQ 16:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Eyetracking study of how people read online - This article is very short & not very content-rich. Perhaps that's good; it might serve as a good introduction. But the tone and content, and the source, make it clear that the author, Jakob Nielsen, is a consultant in the field and this is his consultancy / self-promotional newsletter. Of course, useful content can be found in these, but they need to be reviewed carefully, because they are an incitement for similar consultants to add their similar articles, leading to EL pollution and redundant content. Here, this one single article isn't redundant, and it is a useful introduction to the field. Nielsen also appears to be an usability expert and has a wikipedia article himself, for what that's worth. As for spamming, this article does NOT include anything about the tobii, although from digging, it is apparent that the study that Nielsen touts in the article (one of many he's done) uses the tobii product. That does not qualify as spamming or promoting the product; rather, he's disclosing his methodology etc. on a separate page and in a completely nonpromotional way. So it's not spam for the tobii, but it may be a bit promotional for Nielsen. I'm also not sure it adds anything sufficiently different from the article to be included as an EL under WP:EL. Standing alone, I'd recommend deletion under WP:EL links to be avoided #1 (nothing unique), with a little bit of flavor of #4 (existing primarily to sell Nielsen's services) --LQ 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The three articles together do not serve to promote the tobii system as alleged, although if there are comparable studies and articles written that rely on other systems, then we should review the whole set of ELs for potential product bias. As a group, they don't contribute significantly to the article, but it is helpful to include links to other resources on the Internet, so I think they can be kept. (Although I would probably delete #3.) --LQ 16:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The tenor of the debate thus far: Users Tracker11, Frakny12, and Ractin, thanks for pointing out the possible commercial connection, since it helps all of us non-experts in the field critically assess and watch out for potential commercial bias and subtle spam. But please go easy on Ronz; it doesn't look to me like Ronz is biased in favor of the three EL articles, but rather that Ronz was quickly eliminating external links that waved red flags for potential abuse. Maybe he made a mistake, and we can address it here. If any of you are upset that some other links were improperly removed, please add them below, and we can all try to do a similar objective assessment of the value of the article and its source and any biases or promotions. --LQ 16:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the time and effort you put into this. I agree, though I'd like to explain the Nielsen link more. I already pointed out that it is borderline. However, he is a very well known, professional researcher in a related field, possibly notable enough to pass WP:V criteria for this article if it was used as a reference. Also, I have a professional bias against Nielsen's site and wouldn't want people who know me accusing me of removing it because of that bias. --Ronz 18:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your time and your detailed response LQ.

Introduction to Eyetracking– This link is blatantly promoting Tobii. Is there a reason why this link sits at the top position of external links? There are other more current pages that give a better no biased basic introduction to eye tracking that don't promote tobii, why not link to one of those pages?

Eyetrack III- LQ wrote “It doesn’t mention Tobii” it clearly shows Tobii being used in the picture at the top of the article. The page is from 2004 and is hardly relevant now, why link to that particular old page? Also of interest is how you cant navigate to that page through Eyetrack III (perhaps because the article is 3 years old)

Eyetracking study of how people read online - Pushes readers to page two which shows the offending product again. 3 links all promoting Tobii, coincident I think not.

LQ wrote “Ronz was quickly eliminating external links that waved red flags for potential abuse” Did they not point to pages promoting Tobii? Why are there 3 external links pointing to out of date pages promoting tobii, why? It is completely biased. Tracker11 10:42, 14 December 2006

Tracker11 - sorry that you disagree with us. The articles, separate and together, do not promote anything. Please stop assuming bad faith on my part. --Ronz 15:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
So the question is whether linking to an article that uses a technology, including a picture of the technology, is "promoting" it, in the sense of marketing it. I have to say that in my opinion, these articles don't "promote" the technology in the traditional marketing sense. Simply showing the product used in a study is full disclosure of methodology. Using a product as an example of a technology is, similarly, a NPOV treatment of a technology. Another useful distinction is intending to promote, or being used primarily to promote; versus having the effect of promoting--the former is clearly linkspam; the latter is not linkspam, but we should look at the effects in order to be balanced. We all want to be very careful that Wikipedia is not used for subtle promotion, or appears subtly biased in its resources; "product placement" type promotions can be very hard to discern, and I think that's what's being alleged here. Tracker11, you mentioned "other more current pages" that are unbiased or offer examples (in a nonpromotional way) of other products; could you please offer some of those links here, and we can look at and assess them, too? --LQ 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been 12 months with the same out of date links, surely its time for this wiki's External links to be updated to pages unrelated to tobii? Can I please update the links without the page being reset?Tracker11

Can this link be added? New Research in Computer Control by Head Tracking

That page has a Google ad link to tobii Tracker11July 2007]

Admin please do something, the last link "About using Eye Tracking" is proof of my arguement. The external links on the eye tracking page are all in violation of WP:EL & WP:SPAM they all promote Tobii, Tobii is using the eyetracking wiki as a link mule. User from Sweden the home of tobii has posted a direct link to Tobii's website. Tracker11July 2007]

Merge with "Eye tracker"?[edit]

Why not? Tony 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • What happened to the merge proposal? It looks like a good idea to me. --lquilter 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
So is a merger possible? It would be relatively simple, but I don't know how to do it technically. Does anyone object? Tony 23:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Use the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates. (documentation at Template:Mergeto and Template:Mergefrom.) Post them for a while (a couple of weeks, maybe) & see what people think. If nobody objects or has other better ideas, then go for it. (I'd do it but not quite sure what you have in mind, in terms of from/to, and inclusion of content.) --lquilter 00:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Headline text[edit]

Eye Tracking Technology Breakthroughs 11-05-2015 Zoopid Ideas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biomedicus (talkcontribs) 18:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Commercial technology[edit]

Could this section be updated? At the moment it feels like a commercial for a certain product, surely the liberal use of trademarks is not necessary?Protiek 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • An editor, Lucs-kho, just did a lot of work, most of which was improvement. (Some of the specific deletions I thought took out useful technology, so I reworked that editor's stuff.) The reworking gives the article the structure of a reasonably neutral & encyclopedic approach to the subject, although it's definitely still a bit clunky. The "commercial blah blah" section has now been split into subsections under applications & technologies, which I think is better. It's still subheaded as "commercial X" which probably is not the ultimate ideal, but in the meantime points out that the sections are overdeveloped & probably inserted by those industries. --lquilter 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the use of images with trademark designations is contrary to the spirit and possibly the rules of wikipedia. And the use of three certainly gives it an air of an ad. --lquilter 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've now taken out the unnecessary ™ symbols. See Wikipedia_talk:Trademark_notices for some earlier discussion of this topic and why these notices are not necessary; see also Fair use (US trademark law). I didn't remove the images themselves at this point. I still think there are issues in terms of appearing to promote particular companies but until there are substitutes available I thought they were better than nothing. --lquilter 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely agree that the commercial blah blah is not in the spirit of wikipedia. I started rewriting the entire article, with the idea that most of the technology stuff should be in the "eye tracker" section. After all, there are many, many interesting things that could be said about various eye trackers and their properties (much more than currently said), and it would be better not to mix too much technological detail into the "eye tracking" section which I think should be about the major research question, assumptions, history, methodologies and conferences. Most of the fixation, saccade, smooth persuit and other ocolumotor stuff could go into the "eye movement" section. Also, I think it would be useful to have an "How to make an eye tracking study" section, with sort of basic recipy for this kind of research, which I think many students around the world would appreciate.���Lucs-kho 15:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It sounds great; your changes are really helpful. I wanted to keep some of the technology in for the present because it was helpful, and it wasn't otherwise in. However, as you rewrite the article, we should keep revisiting it. I'm going to be mostly hands-off in terms of adding content while you work on it, but will pop in on editing & smoothing out references & the like. (And with opinions.) --lquilter 22:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Intention to merge the article "Eye tracker" into this one[edit]

In a few days' time, unless someone thinks of a good reason not to. Tony 08:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is "Huey" introduced in second section?[edit]

"Huey built what might be the first eye tracker," ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Poor man's eye tracking[edit]

I am wondering if mention of "poor man's eye tracking" would be appropriate in this article --Bcjordan (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

eye tracking and diagnosis of autism/asperger?[edit]

Please write something about diagnosing ASD with eye-tracking equipment. It is a widely known fact that people who have this disorders do not concentrate their sight on eyes but rather on mouth, or not on faces altogether. This is not always readily visible by simply looking at eyeball of that person because he may learn that it is rude to avoid eye contact so is looking very close to interlocutor's eyes but his eye movement doesn't follow the patter exhibited by normal people. pwjbbb (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Innocenti's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Innocenti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Introduce among the Applications also

Behavioral Economic Research

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Innocenti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Alessandro Innocenti & Alessandra Rufa & Jacopo Semmoloni, 2009. "Overconfident Behavior In Informational Cascades: An Eye-Tracking Study," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 1109, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


This article is rather heterogeneous. Eye tracking research and technology advanced a lot in recent years. I'll add information our current knowledge in little packages over the next weeks. peterkonig 3 June 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterKonig (talkcontribs) 13:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eye tracking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)