On Aug 23, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Caroline Jarrett wrote:
On another list recently, Carolyn Snyder pointed out that there are
two
purposes to user research:
1. Finding out about the product
2. Changing the product
(I paraphrase).
Jared seems to be focusing strongly on point 1. I somewhat
sympathise with
his point of view, in that I've not found that the eye-tracking
stuff adds
greatly to what I can find out from an ordinary observational test
without
eye-tracking.
Yes. That's where I've been focusing because that's where I think the
egregious practices are in place.
I'd prefer to focus somewhat on point 2, which to me is about
influencing
stakeholders to make them want to make changes based on what I've
found. I
have found that eye-tracking stuff can be rather helpful, in some
circumstances, in helping stakeholders to understand what we've
found and
persuade them to act on it.
I haven't focused here because I agree: it's a great piece of
theatrical stagecraft to demonstrate where the users' eyes bounces
around to as you add a commentary that says what the problems with the
design are. Add a little pyrotechnics and a belly dancer, you'd have a
complete show ready to compete with Cirque de Soleil.
If your work consists solely of the finding out aspect, then
probably I'd
agree that you don't need eye-tracking.
If you are stakeholder/decision-maker, then I'd also probably agree
that you
don't need eye-tracking.
For the rest of us, who want to make changes but need to influence
other
people to do so: it can be helpful. It's another tool in the
toolbox, and I
don't see why we shouldn't use it just because some people don't
feel the
need to use it.
I agree.
There is a problem that we haven't addressed though:
What happens when they notice it's fake?
For example, in presentation-to-influencers #1, we say, "As you can
see, the user fixated on the content, which means that they were
confused. Therefore, we need to fix them content presentation."
Yet, months later in presentation-to-influencers #2, we say, "As you
can see, the user fixated on the content, which means they were
completely satisfied and absorbed by it. Therefore, we think the
content presentation works perfectly."
What do we do when they say, "But before, you said fixation was bad.
Now you say fixation is good. Which is it?"
Do we say, "Well, actually, we don't know what fixation means, so we
just tell you it means whatever serves our purposes at the time"? Is
that really the right way to treat our clients?
While I like the razzle dazzle of the eye tracker, I tend to go with
the more honest and straightforward approach of involving them in the
study and letting them come to their own conclusions. That's my
approach and I know it's not generally accepted as a best practice.
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
