Cool.

Not everyone with strabismus has the same symptoms, right? It depends on many factors, as I'm sure you know, which is why I tried to give a bit more info on myself. When I had my third eye surgery (due to my strabismic eyes) around 1995, they told me reading from line to line would be harder at first. And they were right. At this point, though, they had gone into my eyes before I was 5 twice and had cut and then 'reconnected' some nerves. Only my third time was laser. As you may know, knowledge of the causes of this eye problem, especially in the 80s, was pretty minimal. I remember feeling like a guinea pig because they would contradict each other sometimes and say one thing then say they don't fully understand this condition and would have to try different things. And then the "Well, you can try it".

What I'm saying is, it's not as clear cut. It's always interesting for me to read others's experience with strabismus, though.

For me, I ve never had surgery which is why I never had eye movement problems as you describe. Surgery involves shortening (cutting) the muscles that rotate the eye, which requires a period of readjustment.

Reading text in books requires quick eye jumps (saccades). Now, with smooth scrolling, we add to that the need to do smooth pursuit movements , trying to follow the scrolling text. For me, the biggest problem is figuring out where to continue reading after scrolling when the smooth pursuit ends (probably because smooth pursuit has higher margin of error). I think it would really be helpful is there was a line indicating the previous page boundary on screen when changing pages.

Another strabismic person weighing in ;) (Is that even the right word? People just call me cross-eyed...)

I had eye surgerie(s?) when I was very young and don't really remember them. They probably helped, but I've avoided further surgery due to the "guinea pig" impression you describe, and the fact that I don't feel like my vision is severely inhibited. My depth perception is probably worse than that of other people, but I've never known better (and I think my brain has learned to compensate using a strategy skewed toward motion parallax instead of stereopsis).

Anyway, this scrolling method is unreadable to me, for whatever that's worth.

Ah! Hey, I'm willing to agree that it might just be my googly-eyes that this works for :)

This question is for all of you with strabismic (yes, it is a word :D) eyes: Do you 'see' 3D movies? Or are all of them flat with red, blue and various outlines on the screen? For me, it's the latter. Now I have no idea if this has to do with this condition or is something else!

Strabismic people that do not correct the problem before ~8 years old do not have 3d perception using binocular disparity (that is,estimating depth in short distances using only the differences between the images of the two eyes). For me (never had surgery), I cannot see 3d dot stereograms or 3d movies (I ve never actually watched a 3d movie, but I have tried seeing blue/white 3d images in vain).

There are other ways to perceive 3d, such as motion parallax, so yes, we are normal people too :)

That's the reason i am not excited about 3d movies and hope they keep making 2d versions of them

I abhor 3d movies. The old style (with red and blue lenses) would cause me to alternate between flat red or blue images. The new sort just look like dark 2d--if I concentrate very hard I can occasionally notice certain "3d" effects but I'm certainly not getting the same experience as everyone else.

I have strabismus and I can see 3d movies if it's the old kind with the red and blue tinted glasses. For the new ones I can't see the 3d, it just looks like the normal 2d but darker.

I can't see the 3d effects - it all looks 2d - but neither do I see red and blue lines or the like.

strabismic here. Never had surgery. As far as I can tell my brain gave up on merging the vision in my eyes and only uses one at a time. Last time I tried 3d glasses was when they were red and blue. The image kinda strobes between red and blue.