Never really liked this card. Any opinions on what to do?
In support of this suggestion: we have this other card for monocular depth cues:
I think the current suggestion is pretty reasonable and both monocular and binocular cues provide humans a sense of depth.
Or we could make this card more specific to mirror the structure of the monocular cues card one and add in the “with two eyes” at the end?
is there already a card for binocular cues saying it requires viewing a scene with 2 eyes? otherwise this makes sense to do.
There is:
ad7393d8-369d-4e2a-9626-f425ea64f370: {{c1::Binocular cues}} give humans a sense of {{c2::depth}}.
and
382ae6c5-4b3b-4f48-b3e2-a750ae64fc36: {{c1::Retinal disparity}} provides a {{c2:: visual binocular cue}} that facilitates {{c2::depth perception}}.
I like your second suggestion, “with two eyes,” since there is already a distinct monocular cue card. There are also plenty of cards on monocular cues that cover the subtypes of cues and the one binocular card on retinal disparity.
Worth noting is that there is no card for constancy (as a monocular cue) and although relative size and height are quite similar, there is no card for relative height and no mention of it on the relative size card.
I’ve gone back and forth on this a bunch, and I can’t see a neat way to resolve this in the Text field. I’m of the mind that the current text-field maybe ought to stay largely as is, and we add an annotation to the Extra field to clarify that monocular cues also play a (less obvious) role, so we manage completeness without creating an impossible cloze.