One of the first types of communication that develops in infants is communication via gaze. Basically a kid looks at an item he wants to draw attention to it.

Even animals use this form of communication with us. I had a cat once look at his empty plate then look at me in the eyes. The message was clear: My plate is empty, fill it!

Going on a tangent, but I love the idea of a form of visual communication (like reading) that would have eye movement as feedback.

Something like a computer interface where the direction you choose to read in reflects a choice. Something like a menu selection.

If you started with a language similar to the logographs in the Arrival movie, and built into the language the fact that your response flows in a specific direction, giving the system a chance to generate new output to you.

While I’m at it - using a mouse to indicate focus seems silly if good gaze tracking is available.

I would guess that I can point with a lot more precision using a mouse than with my eyes. If I'm moderately careful, I can hit a 3×3 pixel area with my mouse, while the saccadic movement of my eyes is covering maybe a 30 px radius around that area.

However, [1] is a nice read that proves me wrong.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24696315

I would point out that you can only hit that 3x3 pixel area reasonably quickly because you are repeatedly saccading over it and comparing the mouse with it and (very slowly compared to the saccades) adjusting your gross muscular movements to control it. Seems plausible that using just the saccades would be faster by cutting the mouse and your arm out of the loop entirely; you just focus on it, and 'instantly' enough evidence is accumulated about which 3x3 pixel area is the focus of the jittery saccades to pick it.

That might in general be a good idea, but there are situations where it could get awkward - for example, reading in one window and typing in another.

Interesting to think about the implications of this for people with Asperger's- individuals with Asperger's will often avoid eye contact which means that they're missing out on essential cues.

I think about the damage that mask wearing has done to infants in the past 2 years. What effect does it have on a child if it is unable to take a cue from people's faces?

I don't know what the long term effects will be, but I have a habit of smiling at babies in public and I have been pleasantly surprised to notice that even while wearing a mask babies and small children will recognize I'm smiling at them and smile back. I also remember hearing a story recently that people are better at detecting lies when the liar is wearing a mask, so the side-effects may not all be negative.

Presumably parents do not have their masks on when with their infants at home or in outdoor spaces without many folks around.

How is this extreme and irrational assumption about "unable" supported?

> How is this extreme and irrational assumption about "unable" supported?

How is my assumption 'extreme and irrational'?

I'm sure parents do not have their masks on at home either.

But most people outdoors were wearing masks. Relatives, grandparents etc were NOT encouraged to visit, but if they did they should take precautions - that would be wearing masks.

Young children develop by seeing people - they look to faces. A face with a mask on cannot be read by a child. It can't be anything but harmful. I don't see what's to debate about this, but if you want to explain how this is a good or neutral thing - please make an argument.

If I was to push further, preventing normal interactions is a form of child abuse. But then I also think that piercing a child's ears or damaging their body is also abuse - and this isn't a popular view either, albeit I think this too is self-evident.

That's also why people can't talk on telephones, nor can they communicate by written words.

Beware Poe's Law.