[IxDA Discuss] Raising awareness for Interaction Design in a corporate IT company
Dear all, my question is simple in its former but probably less so in its answer. Therefore I would like to ask you all for input on the following: -- How to start creating an awareness of the need for Interaction (/user experience) design in a corporate IT consultancy/developer/implementor company? Background: I am an Interaction Designer myself and work for such a company. We consult, develop and implement IT. But within this there is as good as no attention or interest for IxD/UX. If you have good (or bad) experiences with this, built businesscases for such a situation or have thougts about how to go about or what to take into account, I would be very interested in hearing about it! With kind regards, Rein Groot 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
Speaking of failed pseudo-science - I had the unfortunate opportunity to see Ben Stein's Polemic Excretion Expelled on Friday eveningsigh On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Katie Albers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:27 PM -0400 4/19/08, Will Evans wrote: Yes, but Jared -- There are at least 2 full sessions @ June's UPA conference dedicated to eye-tracking, ergo it must be a valid technique! Not valid , but accepted. Surely we are all familiar with the difference between those twoAnd I suspect you know it :) If not...I know an excellent phrenologist Katie Maybe next year we will have a Tea-Leaf Reading Analytical Practices for Enhanced User Experience, which will follow Rapid A-B testing with Mescaline Electroshock Therapy: Getting a Charge Out of User Testing session. On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Jared M. Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say that I thought eye tracking was fluff. I said that I thought it is a voodoo technique. Deducing information about a design from eyetracking is equivalent to reading tea leaves and using a ouija board. The latter are cheaper, but just as reliable. Every person I know who swears by eyetracking and has stories on how its helped them can't explain how they would've gotten the same results if some other professional had looked at the same raw data. Until we can get to that point, the reader of the data will be more important than the data itself, thereby making tea leaf reading a viable alternative. Jared Jared M. Spool User Interface Engineering 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: 1 978 327 5561 http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208 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 -- ~ will Where you innovate, how you innovate, and what you innovate are design problems - Will Evans | User Experience Architect tel +1.617.281.1281 || [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 -- Katie Albers [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -- ~ will Where you innovate, how you innovate, and what you innovate are design problems - Will Evans | User Experience Architect tel +1.617.281.1281 || [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
On Apr 19, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Jared M.Spool wrote: Every person I know who swears by eyetracking and has stories on how its helped them can't explain how they would've gotten the same results if some other professional had looked at the same raw data. Nor can they explain why they wouldn't get *better* results and *better* recommendations from simply showing the UI to a half-decent user interface designer for 20 minutes. I've never seen a eyetracking recommendation that wasn't either (a) patently obvious to me (Your 6-pixel-high light gray text should be made easier to see) or (b) completely stupid (Move the search box to the left (where you currently have the picture of the cute little puppy) because everyone seems to spends time looking at the left side of the page). -Cf Christopher Fahey Behavior http://www.behaviordesign.com 212.532.4002 x203 646.338.4002 mobile 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
Wow, what skepticism in this thread! I'll admit that I don't use my eye tracker as often as split testing, but I do feel compelled to offer a more positive view on the matter. The #1 utility of the eye tracker, for me, is in helping me understand the user's cognition during a test session. With real time gaze data on a 2nd observer only screen, I don't have to work as hard on eliciting verbal protocol. I have also used the eye gaze reports to ask the user questions after the session -- a methodology others have developed more fully. Heck, I even spotted button gravity in my lab: http://flickr.com/photos/andyed/450579101/ Bruno: Regarding mouse movements, it's clear that eye movements are much higher signal, but mouse position has more data than twiddled fingers. I've summarized research on this on my blog and in a recent publication: http://alwaysbetesting.com/abtest/index.cfm/2007/4/29/Eye-Tracking-vs-Mouse-Tracking There's a longstanding and largely unsuccessful effort to generate quantitative quality metrics from eye-tracking data. That said, distance traveled by eye has been used productively in LukeW's work on forms, presented at Jared's Web App Summit recently. I've also been able to show good design leads to more efficient scan paths, http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2175663626/. I won't dispute that many of the insights from eye-tracking are fairly obvious (ex. no headings in a long menu? http://flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2177600531/), but there's something to be said for how well the visualizations engage consumers. To help with these basic types of insights, we've developed a vision simulation in a browser, Stomper Scrutinizer that helps reveal the multiple fixation requirements of left aligned form labels for example. Andy Bruno Figueiredo wrote: Eye tracking is just like tracking mouse movement or clicks. It doesn't really shows you what users are thinking, they're just secondary manifestations of their thoughts. It's just like when you twiddle your fingers on a table while thinking about what to do next. It has nothing to do with it. Granted, there's some usefulness in the data, since you can uncover some problems, but generally sitting with a user and understanding it's train of thought is much more insightful. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208 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 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Measuring User Experience
Jorge wrote: I'm completely agree that qualitative methods are better than others. But in this case I would like to make a numeric comparison between several websites. That's the reason why my approach was closer to a numerical evaluation. This book may help you: Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics, by Tom Tullis and Bill Albert. Published March 2008. ISBN: 978-0123735584 Best regards, Tom Illmensee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28125 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] teaching young people about usability
Interestingly enough I was just reading a report I was sent yesterday: Being Human: Human-Computer Interaction in the Year 2020 http://research.microsoft.com/hci2020/download.html which makes various recommendations, including number 4 which is summarised in the reader%u2019s guide as: Teach HCI to the young. The report argues that changes in computers and computing have a significant impact on all our lives. Consequently, the study of HCI should be introduced to the young as soon as possible. This goes beyond traditional educational concepts of %u2018computer science%u2019 %u2013 not just teaching children about how computers and applications work, but about their wider impact. -so sorry, it's not really helpful to you, Meredith, but I was just excited to see that people are already on it and thought it might be of interest and encouragement! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28169 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
Jared said: I said that I thought it is a voodoo technique. Deducing information about a design from eyetracking is equivalent to reading tea leaves and using a ouija board. That's a pretty colorful exaggeration. Eyetracking lets you see where people are looking in real time. Without considering post-test analysis, this has real value in helping the facilitator better understand what is happening without interfering. One analogy I find useful, in terms of understanding what the participant is doing/thinking, is that having eyetracking versus not having eyetracking is like testing in person versus testing remotely. I wonder, given your research background, Jared, if we are talking about different types of eyetracking studies. For academic/generalizable research, I have found eyetracking studies to be pretty meaningless. But for testing real products, and only trying to interpret results for those pages, it can be useful and not all that difficult, depending on the stimulus and tasks of course. I also wonder if some people have been burned by past bad experiences with faulty eyetrackers and bad software. My lab at school had three separate eyetrackers and none of them worked correctly. The Tobii one that I use now is easy to use and the analysis software is very good. Paul On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 9:46 PM, Jared M. Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't say that I thought eye tracking was fluff. I said that I thought it is a voodoo technique. Deducing information about a design from eyetracking is equivalent to reading tea leaves and using a ouija board. The latter are cheaper, but just as reliable. Every person I know who swears by eyetracking and has stories on how its helped them can't explain how they would've gotten the same results if some other professional had looked at the same raw data. Until we can get to that point, the reader of the data will be more important than the data itself, thereby making tea leaf reading a viable alternative. Jared Jared M. Spool User Interface Engineering 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: 1 978 327 5561 http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208 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 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Acceptable download/performance time on flash sites?
On Apr 19, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Bruno Figueiredo wrote: I would suggest you to put up a static version of what they're waiting to load with a loading bar on top. That way users get a general sense of what's to come and if it's worth it or not. Kinda of what we did back in the days with no broadband where we used lowres versions of the images to be loaded. About the willingness to wait, frustration hits at about 10 seconds. I have to respectfully disagree with both of these suggestions. Loading bars might as well be a measure of the visitor's cumulative frustration level, and 10 seconds is far too much of the user's valuable time to waste, no matter how wonderful the end result might be. For the Flash-heavy advertising that is the main product of the Very Large advertising company where I work, the general rule is: Load times SHALL take no more than three seconds, and if you need that long, it damn well better erase the viewer's memory of the wait ... and you're not a Vulcan. (That was the draft version of the rule I wrote; the final version was more diplomatic and took twice as long to get to the point.) Robert Hoekman's suggestion to include additional content and/or interactive imagery to the page is actually more of a requirement. There are two components to performance: actual and perceived. If you can't achieve actual performance gains, you must change the user's perception to exclude any experience of waiting. As several people on this thread have suggested, you can continue to load Flash content in the background while your visitors are otherwise engaged. In my opinion, we should flip that idea on its head: Never distract the visitor from what you're showing them NOW with the promise of things to come. Whatever you're doing on screen, you should be guiding and controlling the user's focus of attention. In most cases, the best thing you can put in that focus is *a meaningful message* rather than the melange of effects-driven, semi-abstract fireworks that one sees too often on Flash sites. One huge advantage of keeping meaningful content, presented well, in front of the user at all times is that their perception of time slows down as they consider that meaning ... and that's when your preloaders should be beavering away to set up the next act. Users will only wait longer than that if they perceive the content to be really worth it. The problem with convincing the user that the content they're waiting to see is 'worth it' is that they're *still waiting*. You've only increased their frustration and perception that your site performance sucks. By the way, user testing on 'office productivity software' (guess where that was) indicates that an actual performance problem in one area tends to have a 'bleed-over' effect on users' perception of performance across an entire product. If the user notices *any single performance problem*, previously acceptable performance times will suddenly become marginally unacceptable. User testing won't really do for this since test users usually have a higher tolerance for waiting than real users. True, you shouldn't insert performance-related questions during the main course of testing, as doing so almost always negatively colors the subject's overall assessment of the design being testing. However, you can expose your worst performance hotspots by asking the right followup questions after the main testing tasks are done. If you put it up live, watch for top exit pages in your logs, if they're leaving the content rich pages, you need to decrease the loading times. Absolutely! But decrease the perceived loading times before they start leaving, because you're not just losing a customer, you're losing reputation. Will Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
Paul Nuschke wrote: Eyetracking lets you see where people are looking in real time. Yes. But just because you know where someone looks or doesn't look doesn't mean you know anything about what they see, what they wanted to see, and what they didn't see. It's not clear to me how one interprets the they gazed at this point on the screen for 400 ms information. Was that good? Was that bad? We know that people see things through their peripheral vision, such as the scroll bar, so that's not recorded by the eye tracker. That means we can't even assume that when someone doesn't gaze at a spot that it wasn't seen. With eye trackers, we have a bunch of observations but no way to determine the proper inferences. Instead, all of the value of an eye tracker comes from the interpretation. Show me a study that shows that N separate evaluators looked at the same eye tracking data and came away with the same conclusions and I'll change my mind. Until then, I'll continue to group it with tarot cards and palm reading as a fine art. Without considering post-test analysis, this has real value in helping the facilitator better understand what is happening without interfering. Exactly my point. As the President of Best Buy, John JT Thompson, once told me (while I was delivering a great presentation with a ton of data): I worked for Jack Welch at GE for 17 years and if I learned anything while I was there, it was this: If you torture data long and hard enough, it will confess to anything you want. One analogy I find useful, in terms of understanding what the participant is doing/thinking, is that having eyetracking versus not having eyetracking is like testing in person versus testing remotely. You lost me there. I wonder, given your research background, Jared, if we are talking about different types of eyetracking studies. For academic/generalizable research, I have found eyetracking studies to be pretty meaningless. Actually, that's pretty funny. I think the most exciting eye tracking stuff is happening in research. There were a ton of good posters and some neat presentations at CHI showing how eye tracking, as an alternative input device, could have some really cool applications, especially for accessibility. I also think there are some interesting cognitive and behavioral psych things to learn by using the devices. But I don't think there's been anything useful in terms of using it as a tool to enhance or inform the design process, so I'm guessing we agree there. But for testing real products, and only trying to interpret results for those pages, it can be useful and not all that difficult, depending on the stimulus and tasks of course. Yah, not seeing that. What I see is that it falls nicely in the If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, feel free to baffle 'em with your bullshit category of helping folks understand how to change their designs. But then again, what do I know? Jared Jared M. Spool User Interface Engineering 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: 1 978 327 5561 http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
I'm wondering about the need of eye tracking on any particular page. I mean : it's nice to repeat scientific tests over and over again to control the results. But I don't think it could add specific value to website analysis as such to do it on every site over and over again. I don't see why the results would differ from a general analysis of the website based on the principles obtained in research previously. But, hey, if you can convince a client more easily to put his/her money into your pocktets showing a nice reddish glow on a graph... who I am to stop you ? Pieter Jansegers http://webosophy.ning.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
I have been observing (pardon the pun) how often people look right at something and don;t see it. I am sure there is a technical term for this 'attention periphery' but I have not found it in the research yet. I would love to see the results and analysis of an eye tracking expert of subject watching the now classic dancing bear in the basketball game. Mark http://www.dothetest.co.uk/ On Apr 20, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Paul Nuschke wrote: Eyetracking lets you see where people are looking in real time. 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
On Apr 20, 2008, at 6:18 PM, mark schraad wrote: I am sure there is a technical term for this 'attention periphery' but I have not found it in the research yet. Search for situation inattentional blindness. The primary work was done by Simons at U of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne. 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Jared M. Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Nuschke wrote: Eyetracking lets you see where people are looking in real time. Yes. But just because you know where someone looks or doesn't look doesn't mean you know anything about what they see, what they wanted to see, and what they didn't see. It's not clear to me how one interprets the they gazed at this point on the screen for 400 ms information. Was that good? Was that bad? Imagine that a user needs to click on a link to go somewhere. If she fixates on the link and don't click it, then that's pretty good evidence that she did not understand the link. We know that people see things through their peripheral vision, such as the scroll bar, so that's not recorded by the eye tracker. That means we can't even assume that when someone doesn't gaze at a spot that it wasn't seen. True, but that's a good thing. You can't read or see fine details in your peripheral vision, so even if you notice something it doesn't mean that you looked at it enough to understand what it contained (unless the important details were very big). In the example above, even if the user noticed that a link existed, if she did not attend to it, then she would not have been able to read it. Show me a study that shows that N separate evaluators looked at the same eye tracking data and came away with the same conclusions and I'll change my mind. That some data does not make sense is not a phenomenon unique to eyetracking. I've seen plenty of different interpretations of statistics as well. One analogy I find useful, in terms of understanding what the participant is doing/thinking, is that having eyetracking versus not having eyetracking is like testing in person versus testing remotely. You lost me there. In remote testing, you loose voice quality and you don't see mannerisms, facial expressions, etc. In in person testing, you have gestures and facial expressions, and voice inflections. In eyetracking, you add the ability to see where they are looking. You lose something too, though, in your testing methodology, but that's another e-mail thread. Paul 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Form Validation Messages - How much is needed? [Off-topic:funny]
Matthew Loff wrote: *** naive developer: the form already validated itself-- I should be able to trust its contents! *** paranoid devleper: what if they have javascript turned off, and their ZIP code happens to be 'DROP TABLE users' ... ? A webcomic to that effect: http://xkcd.com/327/ Dan 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
This may be obvious or trivial, but it was a new insight to me. I've never used eye tracking in software/web design or thought it would have much utility. Nonetheless I wandered up to one of the eye-tracking vendors at the CHI conference and got into a conversation with the rep. He said that most of their sales and emphasis were on contexts where there was something other than a single screen to look at -- such as automobile dashboards, complex control panels like nuclear power plants, and the like. In those situations, seeing where people are looking in response to stimuli like alerts, gauges, oncoming obstacles etc., that can come from many different directions, is very important and the eye tracking apparatus can be extremely helpful. That made a lot of sense to me. Al 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
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
On Apr 20, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Paul Nuschke wrote: Imagine that a user needs to click on a link to go somewhere. If she fixates on the link and don't click it, then that's pretty good evidence that she did not understand the link. All you know is that the eye tracker registered that they fixated on the link and that they didn't click. The notion that they didn't understand the link is one inference. It's not the only inference. It may not be the right inference. It is purely *your* interpretation that the user didn't understand it. (And you could've gotten there without the eye tracking data.) We know that people see things through their peripheral vision, such as the scroll bar, so that's not recorded by the eye tracker. That means we can't even assume that when someone doesn't gaze at a spot that it wasn't seen. True, but that's a good thing. You can't read or see fine details in your peripheral vision, so even if you notice something it doesn't mean that you looked at it enough to understand what it contained (unless the important details were very big). Again. Your inference. You don't have any evidence to actually know that's true. In fact, in psychographic phenomena, it's pretty amazing what people can see and deduce from the peripheral vision. There's a lot happening within 140 degrees of the focal point. And it's pretty amazing what is lost within the center gaze area, especially with people who have field issues that are frequent in males over 40, females over 50, and anyone suffering from optic neuritis or other immune-deficiency-based symptoms. (In MS patients, for example, optic neuritis frequently shows up in late teens, early 20s.) So, you are just inferring meaning to the data you're collecting. In the example above, even if the user noticed that a link existed, if she did not attend to it, then she would not have been able to read it. Your inference. There are other likely inferences too. Show me a study that shows that N separate evaluators looked at the same eye tracking data and came away with the same conclusions and I'll change my mind. That some data does not make sense is not a phenomenon unique to eyetracking. I've seen plenty of different interpretations of statistics as well. Ok. Does that make eyetracking work? Not buying it. Still think it's up to the interpreter of the eye tracker. Let me put it another way: Would you, Paul, be comfortable letting your clients to use the eye tracker without any help in interpreting data from you. Is the device all they need to make the judgments necessary to provide good design advice? Jared Jared M. Spool User Interface Engineering 510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561 http://uie.com Blog: http://uie.com/brainsparks 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
