> Seems like your approach would require 3rd party developers to build a completely new UI

Nope; no changes to existing UIs. Instead a driver, which has its own problems of deployment, as that requires convincing the hardware OEMs.

> It’s also the case that existing designs take into account Fitt’s law. Apple and Google are well aware of these.

Hmmmm ... I don't think so. I remember Bruce Tognazzini wrote about how Apple messed up Fitt's law in a version of OSX, where it was one pixel away from supporting an infinite target.

More recently was Apple's addition of "reachability" which is an incredible kludge.

Apple and Google may have usability research, but that is nothing compared to the deep research done at Xerox Parc. I recall seeing studies on the D* machines which measured the efficiency of several text editors, broken down by select, cut, paste, etc. Xerox first tested and measured alternatives before deciding on the best one.

At the first WWDC for the iPhone (2007?), I went a design lab to review our first app. The designer suggest I put navigation at the top, out of reach. I asked him "What about Fitt's Law?" His reply was "who's that?"

> I’m skeptical you’ll find particularly easy to achieve

I agree; this is incredibly hard to achieve. It involves integrating several moving parts, leveraging: TPUs, crypto, and negotiating with OEMs like Apple. I believe the payoff is worth it.

> Nope; no changes to existing UIs. Instead a driver, which has its own problems of deployment, as that requires convincing the hardware OEMs.

I infer from this and your domain name that you plan on using ML to ‘read’ UIs and extract salient features into a canonical model, and then to transform this into your more efficient interaction paradigm.

Is that a fair read?

>> It’s also the case that existing designs take into account Fitt’s law. Apple and Google are well aware of these.

> Hmmmm ... I don't think so. I remember Bruce Tognazzini wrote about how Apple messed up Fitt's law in a version of OSX, where it was one pixel away from supporting an infinite target.

I’m curious if you remember the example. Also - Tog worked at Apple for 14 years, so they clearly did know about it at that time.

> More recently was Apple's addition of "reachability" which is an incredible kludge.

It’s kludge but it has nothing to do with them not knowing fitts law. It has a lot more to do with the iterative path which started with a screen that was small enough to be reached with one hand as a constraint. Market demand forced them to relax this constraint, and they haven’t caught up with the changes yet.

> Apple and Google may have usability research, but that is nothing compared to the deep research done at Xerox Parc. I recall seeing studies on the D* machines which measured the efficiency of several text editors, broken down by select, cut, paste, etc. Xerox first tested and measured alternatives before deciding on the best one.

Did you know that many of those folks went fron Parc to Apple and continued their research?

At the first WWDC for the iPhone (2007?), I went a design lab to review our first app. The designer suggest I put navigation at the top, out of reach. I asked him "What about Fitt's Law?" His reply was "who's that?"

I don’t doubt this, but Apple has a huge number of designers. A developer evangelist is quite different from someone reporting to Alan Dye reviewing fundamental changes.

> I’m skeptical you’ll find particularly easy to achieve I agree; this is incredibly hard to achieve. It involves integrating several moving parts, leveraging: TPUs, crypto, and negotiating with OEMs like Apple. I believe the payoff is worth it.

Do you have the core technology proven out yet?

> I infer from this and your domain name that you plan on using ML ... Yep

> I’m curious if you remember the example. Also - Tog worked at Apple for 14 years

I couldn't find it, although he has another post on Fitt's Law. The phrase he used was "pulling defeat from the jaws of victory" - maybe it's on Archive.org

> it’s kludge but it has nothing to do with them not knowing fitts law.

Yeah, my characterization is a bit unfair

> Did you know that many of those folks went front Parc to Apple and continued their research?

I did have a chance to meet Jef Raskin a few times. He was between Apple stints, working on the Canon Cat. He's the one who turn me onto Card, Moran, Newell 1983 -- and thus Fitt's Law.

I don't doubt there is a lot of thought that goes into refining the UI. However, there's the quandary of breaking the current idiom, which limits change. However, for low vision folks, there is less of a switching cost. Same holds for newer devices, like glasses.

> Do you have the core technology proven out yet?

Tis incomplete. Some parts of the interaction model. Am a bit weak on the ML part. May license GPT-n. Looking to form a team. Just convinced my blind friend to join. He kinda pioneered AR in the 90's.