On 21/11/2007, Robert Hoekman, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 23 rules actionable lessons from eye-tracking studies: > http://tinyurl.com/yrhydu > > I'm curious whether or not others on the list take this stuff seriously.
Simple answer is no, it's misleading. Text doesn't ATTRACT more attention, it REQUIRES more attention. So whilst an image can be glanced and understood quickly whilst you have to read text. As with Jakob Nielsen's terrible 'Talking Heads are boring' article what is happening is bad conclusion is being wrung from a fairly meaningless set of data. In the talk head video people where listening first, for example. It's only real use is to test hypothesis, probably best in an academic setting - not as a discovery tool. But then I even see lab based usability testing as second fiddle to infield ethnographic testing - labs are great for impressing clients but it's all smoke and mirrors - well half silvered mirrors. Eye tracking has no use on a real project, something I've learnt by talking to those who have had experience of it first hand. I've even been told that 'heat maps' are very little use as the time element is missing, yet that's what clients like. In short - it's snake oil. -- Stewart Dean ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
