Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! Kristine and I will do some tag-teaming on this. 1) Currently a lot of other services ask people to take "x" number of footsteps away from the screen to approximate "y" feet from the monitor. Using this context, I'd argue that the variation in arm length isn't as dramatic as variation in foot size. Ultimately though, when we're using near vision as a proxy for distance vision, the natural variation in arm len…
Cool! I can see there's a lot of creativity that goes into replicating in-person vision tests with a reasonably valid unsupervised version on people's home equipment. I hope you have success replicating as many of them as possible. It's interesting to think of the adversarial element in #5 where vision test results are used to qualify for something. In this case a completely unsupervised test is really easy to cheat…
The psychology of how people relate to their vision -- especially the independence that good vision affords -- is very complex and certainly something I wish that our training spent more time emphasizing. There are patients who come into clinic with relatively minor and non-vision threatening problems who are afraid of imminently going blind, and there are patients on the other end of the spectrum who are imminently going to go blind but are in denial about it (or are not terribly bothered by the possibility.) Handling these scenarios and all the gray spaces inbetween is one of the more challenging parts of delivering eyecare (and healthcare in general.)
Ultimately, we're aiming for clinical accuracy and scalability first, with an understanding that there are lots of underlying incentives and potential roadblocks that we will tackle head on when the time is right.