Jared, you are selling Caroline's point short... how about this scenario: We report that test participants asked to locate the search box looked in the upper right corner for it. They told us that this is where they expected it to be and the eyetracking confirms that this is where they looked for it.
So, yes, the ET lent further support to a talk aloud finding. For some clients - rightly or wrongly - this strengthens their confidence in the results. That's not razzle dazzle, it's just additional, consistent feedback. They "said" this and they "did" this. Why is it any different from reporting where they clicked?* Sure, it's optional - I don't think anyone claims ET replaces talk aloud or that it's even necessary for a good study. But it can be a valid, additional tool (in the right hands) for helping clients to feel comfortable about the research results. NG *As an aside, I think it's interesting that many of your arguments against eyetracking could also be leveled against clickstream analysis / clickmaps, etc... I am amazed at how willing clients are to believe that this data is meaningful on its own. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=44684 ________________________________________________________________ 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
