ok thanks, I'll see where it goes. It would be for the 'Eye Tribe' eye tracker, 99$ and mostly mainstream, but you're right in that not so many people would benefit from it right now. I'll get back to this mailing list if I have something then. Best regards, ben
On 3 April 2014 10:44, johannes hanika <hana...@gmail.com> wrote: > hi, > > that sounds like a very specialized setup, i doubt other users would > profit from it. i would recommend trying that in a public branch on github, > and let's see how much interest it spawns. i don't think we would merge > special purpose code like that upstream. we couldn't even test it's working > or not.. > > -jo > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Benjamin Lefaudeux < > benjamin.lefaud...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Johannes, >> it would just be an option to tick so that the eye tracking device is >> used to change UI reactions (hide panels when you don't look at them for >> instance). >> My issue is that there's no standard yet as regards eye tracking APIs, so >> I would hook to one from a specific vendor (not on a driver level, there's >> a server/client infrastructure). I was wondering if this could >> hypothetically be merged upstream, or if the vendor dependency was a no go ? >> Not sure of the end result, I was just considering it and wondering what >> would be the status of such a patch. >> Benjamin >> >> sent on the go >> On 2 Apr 2014 13:47, "johannes hanika" <hana...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> heya, >>> >>> not sure i understand the question. you're planning to write a module >>> for some special hardware? including drivers? >>> >>> -jo >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Benjamin Lefaudeux < >>> benjamin.lefaud...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> congrats first for all the work you did on Darktable, awesome, it has >>>> been my RAW processing software of choice for some time now.. . >>>> I have a small question as regards your policy with respect to vendor >>>> specific APIs : I was planning on testing a UI modification in the field of >>>> eye-tracking devices, for which there's no standard as of now. It would >>>> then be something specific to one vendor, even if the overall principle >>>> would be easily portable to another one, when and if it comes to Linux. >>>> Would such a modification be considered for an upstream merge ? >>>> No problem in any case, just asking ! >>>> Best regards >>>> Benjamin >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> darktable-devel mailing list >>>> darktable-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel >>>> >>>> >>> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ darktable-devel mailing list darktable-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel
