Wow, what skepticism in this thread! I'll admit that I don't use my eye tracker as often as split testing, but I do feel compelled to offer a more positive view on the matter.
The #1 utility of the eye tracker, for me, is in helping me understand the user's cognition during a test session. With real time gaze data on a 2nd observer only screen, I don't have to work as hard on eliciting verbal protocol. I have also used the eye gaze reports to ask the user questions after the session -- a methodology others have developed more fully. Heck, I even spotted "button gravity" in my lab: http://flickr.com/photos/andyed/450579101/ Bruno: Regarding mouse movements, it's clear that eye movements are much higher signal, but mouse position has more data than twiddled fingers. I've summarized research on this on my blog and in a recent publication: http://alwaysbetesting.com/abtest/index.cfm/2007/4/29/Eye-Tracking-vs-Mouse-Tracking There's a longstanding and largely unsuccessful effort to generate quantitative quality metrics from eye-tracking data. That said, distance traveled by eye has been used productively in LukeW's work on forms, presented at Jared's Web App Summit recently. I've also been able to show good design leads to more efficient scan paths, http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2175663626/. I won't dispute that many of the insights from eye-tracking are fairly obvious (ex. no headings in a long menu? http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2177600531/), but there's something to be said for how well the visualizations engage consumers. To help with these basic types of insights, we've developed a vision simulation in a browser, "Stomper Scrutinizer" that helps reveal the multiple fixation requirements of left aligned form labels for example. Andy Bruno Figueiredo wrote: > Eye tracking is just like tracking mouse movement or clicks. It > doesn't really shows you what users are thinking, they're just > secondary manifestations of their thoughts. It's just like when you > twiddle your fingers on a table while thinking about what to do next. > It has nothing to do with it. Granted, there's some usefulness in the > data, since you can uncover some problems, but generally sitting with > a user and understanding it's train of thought is much more > insightful. > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Posted from the new ixda.org > http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208 > > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > ________________________________________________________________ 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
