On Aug 21, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Nick Gould wrote:
You seem
unwilling to admit the possibility that those who find value in the
technology are anything but thieves and charlatans (or children
playing with toys).
I'm willing to accept that anyone who finds value in it, does indeed
find value in it. I'm just not willing to accept when they make false
claims about what it can do. I find value in a good chocolate chip
cookie, but I don't claim it's the solution to world hunger.
If you want to play with an eye tracker that's fine. I don't have any
real interest in what you do with your free time.
If you want to sell your eye tracker to your clients as something that
makes your work special, that's fine too. I don't see how it's any
different than a fancy conference room or nicely formatted reports. If
it brings a special flare to your work and makes you look smart, then
I'm all for it.
But, don't try to sell me (or anyone who is the least bit intelligent)
that the eye tracker somehow tells you something about how people
"see" a design. I'm not buying it. Don't try to tell me that it gives
us information we can't glean any other way. I'm not buying that
either. Don't try to tell me that knowing where the user has gazed has
any relevance on anything useful. I'm not buying that.
But, we've been through this already. So, I don't see any value in
continuing this, until someone has something interesting to say.
What would that be? Well, it could be someone who isn't a consultant
that makes money off eye tracking services saying how they found a way
to use the technology within their design practice to produce results
that they wouldn't have found otherwise. It could be someone who isn't
from an eye tracking consultancy sharing how the device continues to
deliver insights they wouldn't gain any other way.
That's what I'm waiting for. And have been waiting for since I first
started playing with eye tracking equipment in 1994. I've got 15 years
of experience with these suckers and have put them through their
paces. I think I know a little something about them.
Seems that, given your professional
impermeability relating to this issue, you could just leave well
enough alone; give your opinion when asked but otherwise respect the
right of others to run their businesses as they see fit. Anyway...
This has nothing to do with how you want to run your business. This
has to do with being honest about your work.
My son's a professional magician. As a result, I've spent a lot of
time around magicians.
When magicians perform for laymen, they often talk about the
mysterious forces in the universe. They work hard to let their
audience believe in something big -- magic. A good magician plays on
the wonder of the audience and, if they do their job well, those
audience members leave believing they've witnessed something miraculous.
If you want to use eye tracking to let your clients walk out the door
believing in something miraculous, I'm all for it.
The interesting thing is this: When magicians gather at their
professional conferences or groups to talk about their craft, they
don't pretend magic really exists. They are honest with themselves.
They talk about illusions, mechanics, and stage craft.
I believe that an eye tracking system can produce great stage craft.
I've seen it. It is stunning what people will pay attention to when
they are shown the devices in action.
But let's be honest with ourselves about what it really can and can't
do. That's all I'm asking for - a little professional integrity.
My question for you, Jared: Do you place NNG / Jakob Nielsen among
the phonies? I understand that they use eyetracking quite regularly
and are about to release a book about it.
Funny you should mention that.
First, the book, which you say they are about to release was first
supposed to be released in 8/2007. It's been delayed for more than 2
years. Not heard why.
Second, in my keynote at the UPA conference, with Jakob in the
audience, I showed examples from his eye tracking research and called
out the same issues that we've discussed here.
I didn't call anyone a phony and I haven't called anyone a phony. All
I've said is that eye tracking is a tool for consultants to
differentiate their work and manipulate data to support their points.
You're the one who has assumed that means you're a phony. (Of course,
if the shoe fits...)
Is Jakob a phony because he might someday release a book that talks
about using eye tracking in usability work? No. Will I be impressed by
what he has to say? We'll see. I haven't been impressed with what he's
published so far on this topic (his "F" pattern stuff is very amusing
- http://is.gd/2sUNW), but if he says something interesting, I'll be
right there.
Jakob & I don't agree on everything. Nobody seems to have a problem
with that.
You & I don't have to agree on everything either.
As I stated when I first started this debate, I know that my position
pisses off the eye tracking aficionados. I'm ok with that.
Jared
________________________________________________________________
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
