On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I need to brush up on my 'dealing with phobics' skills. A lot of the > positions against eye tracking are unreasonable. There is a clear > correlation between what people look at and what they comprehend.
A 1:1 correlation? What sort of correlation? I'm not sure I've heard anyone on this thread deny that comprehension is related to seeing which is related to gazing, but the devil is in the details, no? > Why > would anybody deny it? I've never been very good at reading things > I've not looked at! > This sounds like a straw-man argument to me. At the last eye tracking conference in Frankfurt we discussed the > issues with what poor research was doing to the reputation of the eye > tracking industry. I didn't realise that Mr Spool had played a part > in that over the last 15 years. > > I'm sort of amazed there are eyetracking conferences and an eyetracking industry. Is there a cardsorting industry? -x- -- Christian Crumlish I'm writing a book so please forgive any lag http://designingsocialinterfaces.com ________________________________________________________________ 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
