[stcredzero]

> This is totally incorrect, eye tracking is not sufficiently advanced to be in any way useful in terms of entering input.

Actually, you are totally incorrect. If you look back at the thread, I am not proposing eye tracking as a sole means of input, but as a means of providing contextual information to other means of input.

> I realize my first comment was kind of mean and sarcastic, but that was because this idea is so completely stupid and not progressive at all that I thought the relatively intelligent community on hacker news would realize this immediately. All my friends and co-workers who saw it were like "this is completely dumb"... immediately.

Then at least you or you and your friends are guilty of sloppy reading, of a level I do not expect for HN. Again, this is not proposed as a primary means of input, but as an enhancement to contextual information for speech and handwriting input.

[jenius]

Hey sorry this is so late. Didn't realize what you meant by contextual input or how that could be useful, but you're right - I can't deny such a fuzzy statement. It's somewhat possible that this could help something sometime in the future, definitely. Apologies for calling you incorrect. Eye tracking is however not efficient or useful as a main input for typing and will very likely not take a leading role in helping to recognize word/sentence input to computers.

On the second statement, I meant my original comment about google handwriting, the one at the top of this tree - not your comment about eye tracking. So I apologize again - I must have not been clear in the way I stated that and I'm sorry you took offense.