Anyway, what I wanted to say was that there’s things both sides can and are learning from each other. One side is learning about optics and why this happened, the other side is learning that they need to work on better ways to program.

It seems likely to me that it may have been tested on black people in an environment that was well-lit, that the error would have most likely been on thinking to test both skin color and lighting conditions at the same time. If the testers figured that it did work on all people in one set of conditions, they might not have thought to test both conditions at once, figuring there probably wouldn’t be a reason to since it worked on all people previously. This may have indicated more of a lack of knowledge of camera optics in regards to different skin tones than necessarily never having tested other demographics.

I’m just saying there’s a chance it worked like this:
Management: Did you get it working within the budget and time constraints?
Engineers: Yes, it works really well. We’re pretty excited about it.
Management: Does it work for all skin colors?
Engineers: Yeah, we tested that out.
Management: Does it work in different lighting?
Engineers: Well, we have some issues at low lighting, but with proper lighting being used, it should work just fine.
Management: Good.
There may have been no point in the conversation where someone went “Did you test all skin colors and lighting circumstances simultaneously?” Works for all colors: check. Starts messing up in poor lighting: check. They might not have checked both at the same time. I’m saying that it seems possible that it wasn’t tested extensively, that they just covered the bases instead of checking various circumstances at the same time.

Then again, who knows under what constraints or what scenarios this was done under? It’s all speculation, so even my post is useless.

I think it would be best for HP and other places to have Sociologists hired to think about these circumstances, to reduce the chance of these things happening. However, there’s still a chance even a Sociologist wouldn’t have asked “Did you make sure it works with people of all different skin tones in low lighting?” Engineers and programmers are by nature problem solvers figuring out how to make something work cheaply. They’re problem solvers of technology, not necessarily people knowledgeable of or trained to deal with all kinds of possible outcomes of their product. Now that they have undeniable awareness of the flaws of using only contrast in their programming, I have no doubt they’ll solve it.

I guess one last thing would be, if people went “Your product doesn’t work with dark skin tones as well as it does with light skin tones. We feel it would be best to address this problem as quickly as possible, and once fixed, offer replacements to people unsatisfied with your product. The camera’s poor quality when presented with darker skin colors will reflect on your sales, so we would encourage you to fix this as quickly as possible.” I doubt a reasonable company wouldn’t start working on fixing the problems right away, even without aggressive words. Then again, if they don’t respond with “We’re working on it, in the mean time please use good lighting” then by all means, rage away until they fix it, because then they would demonstrate that they legitimately do not care about other races.

I am apparently reading this wrong, but shouldn’t that mean that these algorithms would be better at detecting the contrast between the white of a person of color’s eyes and their dark skin?

Amongst the mishegas, this made my day. Just thought you should know. ;)

Creepy and weird, yes. But a cool story idea…if terribly unrealistic. :p

Yeah, you are. And doing so with arguments that have no basis what so ever.

“The reason I jumped into the conversation at all is because every time someone says they are offended by something, without fail, someone else will try to explain why said thing isn’t offensive, and offended person is overreacting.”

Actually, no one has said this isn’t offensive. We’ve just been trying to discuss why this occurred from a knowledgeable stand point as opposed to a self righteous, reactionary standpoint.

Now back to point 2: The fact that the camera is made to where it works out of the box for white people but not black people speaks to a privilege of being white.

Again, no it doesn’t. The camera works fine for both groups ITS THE LIGHT THAT WORKS DIFFERENTLY

back to point 3: Yes I understand the the price of camera usually stems from the optics of the camera not the features. I specifically brought this up because someone above said “Again, software can only do so much to compensate if the hardware is cheap.” Others mentioned the constrictive budgets that they assume are present. All I’m trying to say is that the price of the camera doesn’t lessen the offense.

Irrelevant because again, the issue isn’t with the cheap webcam, or the expensive studio camera, or a cheap point and shoot film camera, or AN AUDIENCES EYES IN A LIVE PERFORMANCE ENVIRONMENT! The problem (and as a lighting designer I’ve never once before this thread considered it problem, simply a part of my job) is that dark objects and light objects reflect different amounts light.

“back to point 4: Yes I know proper lighting isn’t about having the lighting required in the first place. It’s about having the know-how. I know the rule of front lighting, but I can’t tell you how many times I break the rule because I’m not thinking about it. I also know a lot of people who don’t know the rule at all. I’m sure if you look through random people’s pictures you will find a LOT of back lighting.”

You are absolutely right on this, and I’ll bet if we took a poll of webcam users who tried to use this face tracking feature in strong back light, we’d have a lot of black AND white hands raised

“Because it is a cheap camera, the consumers for this product are more likely to not know the front lighting rule and engineers and marketing know this.”

And anyone who had trouble with the feature could open up the troubleshooting section and find the answer they needed.

“back to point 6: No I don’t have a problem with profit. I understand that’s how our society works. To be honest if I had to make the decision, I would either leave out the feature completely or keep it as-is depending on how bad the problem is. But to act like HP (or any other for-profit company) isn’t concerned with profits above all else is a flat out lie. They are- that’s the way it works. Why is it that when I mention the obvious that HP is concerned about profit, not people then suddenly I’m anti-profit (or just don’t understand how business works). I’m just stating a well known fact: businesses’ bottom line is profit- get over it.”

I am over it. I like it in fact. It just bugs when people toss out lines like that as an insult. Everyone’s bottom line is profit. Whether it be money, warm fuzzies, security, or the satisfaction of helping people, getting the job done, or doing the right thing we all profit from it, and to pretend you’re some how above all of that by tossing that “they only did it for profit” is disingenuous at best and condescending, self congratulatory, fuax sophistry at worst. Every decision you have ever made in your entire life was motivated by profit of some form or another so think twice before dismissing and judging others, your poop don’t smell like roses, and no one else’s does either.

“The only other thing I have to say is when people mention here is another product that doesn’t work the same for them as it does everyone else and gee maybe they are tired of everything being set up for everyone else but them,”

The product your referring to is the visual spectrum of light, correct?

“that maybe we should listen rather than going on and on about how they really don’t matter and should just get over it.”

I have listened and both muas and I spoke to this although he did much better than I: “It’s a technical problem with interesting social implication. Also, no one here told anyone else to get over anything… except you…

“I don’t get it”

No, you don’t

I was explaining the general lifecycle of consumer products, and why certain technological breakthroughs present in the highest end tech is not transferred to the low end products.

The disposable products use high tech towards as much cost-reduction as possible, because they are designed to be “good enough”.

“Whether or not that’s your intention, it sounds really unjust. It’s like you’re saying that we can’t be arsed to develop software that works for everyone because it’s expensive, requires improvement of current technology, and more development. It sounds like defending a company’s right to produce crap and lemons.”

You, as a consumer, have every option to not purchase the shittiest branded product on the market. But it hardly makes me a corporatist libertarian shill to tell you to set your expectations properly for the lowest end cameras on the market. For these low-end cameras, there are often support-based caveats, that when followed, allow the cameras to function as advertised. I do not believe that “DOES NOT FUNCTION OPTIMALLY ON THOSE WITH DARK SKIN AND BACKLIGHTING” should be included on the packaging as long as the proper steps to get the device working are included with the support documentation.

“What a defeatist position.”

A defeatist position involves supporting willful ignorance of the basic principles of light and optics, and the patronizing behavior towards people who may not understand the behavior of light and optics, let alone the micromanaging of the lowest end products to meet every unrealistic expectation you may have.

If the consumer doesn’t get why his or her product doesn’t work, the solution is to

1) buy a product with better low-light components, which may be 2-3x times what this costs.

2) educate the consumer as to better illuminate the environment, which will also have the side-effect of recording and transmitting a clearer picture to the recipient

not to treat them like helpless, reactionary children there for you to keep in the dark, coddle, and “save”.

They were working with professional broadcast equipment meant to be used in production facilities and costing 100x the price of this webcam.

But people with dark skin aren’t being blown up, they’re being asked to use better lighting. That’s more like requiring kids to use car seats to make the cars as safe as advertised — that’s not ageism, even though kids require further effort, that’s a recommendation based on physical properties of the people using the product. (Being 40 pounds in a car, or low-contrast in bad lighting in front of a cheap camera.)

Hey, I have a liberal arts degree too and I spat out coffee at the contrast thing just as much as anyone! Ignorance crosses degree boundaries. :p

Africans have lower contrast faces. Probably an evolutionary advantage in certain situations.

Of course, my liberal-arts-school *biology* degree doesn’t hurt the whole knowing-what-science-is thing. And yes, melanin can be a wonderful thing if a lack of sun and vitamin D does not require total pasty-ass-itude.