The software seems on a par with the other automated fields tests I have regularly at hospital, and the output looks similar, showing approximately the same areas of degredation. Those automated tests are also approximate, so that's fine.
I do think there should be something to help you interpret what the results are. There's no indication what a "good" result should look like - that would be even response time across the field, and a even senstivity. Nor is there anything to say "you should go and see an eye specialist". If you get a result that looks like the patchwork I get, there should be something to let you know there could be something wrong with your eyes.
The software seems on a par with the other automated fields tests I have regularly at hospital, and the output looks similar, showing approximately the same areas of degredation. Those automated tests are also approximate, so that's fine.
I do think there should be something to help you interpret what the results are. There's no indication what a "good" result should look like - that would be even response time across the field, and a even senstivity. Nor is there anything to say "you should go and see an eye specialist". If you get a result that looks like the patchwork I get, there should be something to let you know there could be something wrong with your eyes.