On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Guy Redwood wrote:
Camp 4
Those that use it as a core tool for user experience research and
possibly don't worry too much about the flat-earthers that are
missing a huge opportunity to get inside the users' heads.
Which are you?
How about Camp 5?
Those who have used it for going on 15+ years, since the early days of
the first systems, and conducted much of the ground-breaking research
that was the basis of what we know about how people interact with
systems, and after hundreds of sessions has thoughtfully decided the
equipment doesn't offer any real added value to other established
practices.
That's where I am.
This is not about being a flat-earther. This is about actual,
substantive, useful value.
If y'all want to buy your toys and play with them, please feel free to
do so with your heart's content. I have no problem with that. In fact,
I encourage it. Play time is important.
However, let's keep clear on what the actual data from eye tracking
tells us. It can't tell us what the user sees. It can't tell us what
the user doesn't see. It only tells us what they gaze at, which from
my experience of working with the technology, isn't really that useful.
There is no huge opportunity "to get into the users' head." That's a
myth propagated by people who spent a lot of money on equipment that
doesn't do anything but confirm whatever version of the world they
want it to confirm.
Remember, if you torture any data hard enough, it will confess to
anything you want. Eye tracking is the waterboarding of usability data.
Feel free to dismiss my experience if you want, but that's where I'm at.
Jared
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
