Teenager Builds $300 Open Source Eye-Tracking System

fergus07 writes "Developed by a 17-year-old electronics and programming whiz from Honduras, the Eyeboard system is a low-tech eyeball-tracking device that allows users with motor disabilities to enter text into a computer using eye gestures instead of a physical interface. This kind of system is not unique — there's plenty of eye tracking interfaces out there — but Luis Cruz has figured out a way to build the full system into a set of glasses for less than US$300, putting easier communication within reach of users in developing countries. He's also releasing the software as open source to speed up development."

Comments

Eyewriter?

[Osgeld]

http://www.instructables.com/id/The-EyeWriter/

I would have had the first post...

[godrik]

... if I did not had to use an eye-tracking device!

Re:I would have had the first post...

[nomel]

This kid made an an eye gesture device, not true eye tracking. You can't have a cursor follow your eye.

"users with motor disabilities to enter text into a computer using eye gestures instead of a physical interface."

If you look, you'll see it's only two wires attached near the eye which makes it somewhat obvious. Cool, but a misleading title.

In other news, a news reporter misunderstands technology!

Wont someone think of

[AHuxley]

The US shareholders, their trust kids and this very real threat to generational wealth and long term patents.
They invested wisely in medical tech and have the US market cornered with helpful devices starting at a few thousand $.
If developing countries want the tech, let them contact USAID and get it the correct way.
Overtime this tech will be made into low cost products and shipped back into the US - like pharmacy products are now from Canada and Mexico.

Re:Wont someone think of

[Fluffeh]

This is either amazingly asinine or a brilliant troll because I can't work out which.

If you (America) wants to keep the tech in-house, stop selling the manufacture contract to the lowest bidder, i.e. another country. Pony up with the money to build it in the US. Yes, the manufacturing costs will be much higher, but if you have a monopoly on the market for that particular product, then price isn't that much of an issue.

All your debt, all your trade deficit. It's dead simple to fix. You could fix it tomorrow. Stop buying imported goods. You want to help your country, buy the products that you make domestically. Will you (the people) pay a lot more? Yes. Will your selection be smaller? Yes, greatly. Will it be better for your country? Sure it will. With some luck you might even then be able to start selling some of your goods overseas to help pay back that stupidly high debt.

Re:Wont someone think of

[PopeRatzo]

You want to help your country, buy the products that you make domestically

But then how will we buy all the cheap shit from Wal-Mart that ends up in landfill?

Nobody thinks of the Walton family, I guess and the effect this could have on them.

And if Wal-Mart closes, then all those people who closed their small stores will have to go back to work in their own shops, instead of the nice jobs they have now as Wal-Mart greeters.

Re:Wont someone think of

[Fluffeh]

Hey Maztuhblastah, yes, my PCs are made in the same place that your PCs are made. That's not how it has always been though has it - which is my point. The first microprocessors (Intel 4004) were built by Intel, which is an American company based in Santa Clara. The first microcontroller/microcomputer was built by the Texas Instruments, which was the TMS 1000. That company is in Texas.

My point is that it isn't enough just to have a great R&D department in America. If you really want to keep profits, you need to have that great R&D and then build it at home. Will that mean that a US built computer (assuming all the manufacturing plants were there) would cost buckets more than a computer built with the same specs in China? Absolutely.

The problem is that in trying to maintain profits companies look at (for the most part) fairly short term horizons. Will they be able to make more money by having a product built overseas where workers are payed a handful of beans per week? What isn't factored into the equation is whether that overseas manufacture will cause the plant down the road to close down due to lack of demand. Companies are insular in that they don't look for the best outcome of their community, their state or their country. That's where the government should be stepping in to either increase taxes on products coming in from overseas, or offering incentives to keep that industry on their own soil. Now, it can get stupid (see American sugar cane growers for a perfect example of this) but if the American people refused to buy sugar made from cane grown overseas, then the cane farmers would be quite happily able to maintain their own industry at home.

While the choice to buy local can be difficult, do you think that GM or Ford would be in such a pickle if the American public were thinking of their country first and refused to buy Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi and all those Hyundais?

I live in Australia and while I understand that I cannot buy EVERYTHING I need as an Australian made product, I make sure to buy everything I can. That often means I pay a premium. We don't grow much rice in Australia these days, which is a bit of a shame. I also make a point to write to supermarket chains to point out a lack of choice. Recently I went to my local supermarket (one of the two large supermarket chains in Australia) and found that I wasn't able to buy beans that were made in Australia. There were even a number of bean tins that were branded by the supermarket - but made in Italy. If enough people made the choice to speak what they wanted - and they spoke with more than "I want the cheapest!" then we would have a much better debt position. People like Dick Smith do wonders to point these sort of things out in the media - and I really wish that more people listened and did something rather than just nodding and forgetting five minutes later. For example, he has a product that competes with Redheads matches. It's called Dickheads. The back of the box reads: We would have to be complete dickheads to let most of our famous Australian brands be taken over by foreign companies. Brands such as Vegemite, Aeroplane Jelly, Arnott's, Speedo and Redhead Matches are in overseas hands. This means the profit and wealth created goes overseas and robs our children and grandchildren of a future. A protest from Dick Smith Foods. As Australian as you can get..

You make the bed you will sleep in later. I am trying to make the best bed I can, and try to encourage others to do so too. That's all I can do.

Re:Wont someone think of

[Fluffeh]

This isn't about debt (more on that later though), it's about trade deficit.

The U.S. has held a trade deficit starting late in the 1960s. Its trade deficit has been increasing at a large rate since 1997 (See chart) and increased by 49.8 billion dollars between 2005 and 2006, setting a record high of 817.3 billion dollars, up from 767.5 billion dollars the previous year. The US last had a trade surplus in 1975. Every year there has been a major reduction in economic growth, it is followed by a reduction in the US trade deficit.

Using the last few years, the US is literally giving other countries around five hundred billion dollars each year more than it is taking from them. That sort of economy simply cannot in any way, shape or form continue forever. It will eventually bottom out.

Now, moving on to who does own US debt.

As of January 2011, foreigners owned $4.45 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public of $9.49 trillion and 32% of the total debt of $14.1 trillion. The largest holders were the central banks of China, Japan, the United Kingdom and Brazil. The share held by foreign governments has grown over time, rising from 13% of the public debt in 1988 to 25% in 2007.

Maybe that's not "most", but that's certainly some scary numbers. Sourced from United States Public Debt.

Re:Wont someone think of

[NeutronCowboy]

Using the last few years, the US is literally giving other countries around five hundred billion dollars each year more than it is taking from them.

And in return, the US is getting goods worth around $500 billion more than other countries. That's how trade works. If you want to export more than you take in, you end up with less goods in your market than elsewhere.

There's always two things I find amusing in these discussions:
* the idea that Americans are more deserving of running the world than others, and that if they can't run it, they'll take the entire construct down
* the idea that the US trading with Mexico and Canada is somehow different than Texas trading with California, or Sacramento trading with Santa Clara.

Furthermore, with the amount of money those foreign governments hold, it's the US that owns them, not the other way around. The same way that if I owe a bank 100 grand, the bank owns me, but if I owe the bank 50 billion, I own the bank.

Re:wat

[bugs2squash]

cheaper yet, stick a toothpick in each eye and simply use the keyboard.