Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
As others have already pointed out, the primary benefactor of eye-tracking studies is the coordinator of the studies. After many such studies, I gradually have absorbed what textbooks could not teach me effectively about this science. What draws the human eye is not quite unpredictable, but the wide variance does not lend itself to easy rule-making. Madison Avenue has been using this technology for years for somewhat nefarious purposes. We need to embrace it and put the knowledge to good use across the discipline of interaction and experience design. How could we tolerate the idea that it would be okay for marketing and advertising folks to know more about this area than ourselves? Here's the rub though: I have always found it challenging to use the eye-tracking data to correct my own designs. When I tried to do this initially, I would never get it right: I would re-submit corrected designs for new eye-tracking and I'd get even worse results. Persistence was key. Eye-tracking studies have made me a better designer. And my clients love it. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larry Tesler Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:22 PM To: Jared M. Spool Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated? Jared, If most readers think this has gone on too long, we should wind it down. On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:59 AM, Jared M. Spool wrote: On Apr 22, 2008, at 3:08 AM, Larry Tesler wrote: The fact that different observers see different things in the same raw eye tracking data is of no more concern to me than the fact that different players count a different number of words on the same Boggle board. Some people see words that are hidden in plain sight; some do not. But noticed or not, the words are there. In the tea leaves, there are no hidden words. Larry, I have no doubt that the observations are of interest. My point is that the inferences drawn from those observations have little-to-no validity, thus the tea leaf analogy. I consider them valid if they inspire us to make design changes that lead to improvements in objective metrics. In any study, with or without an eye tracker, I look for: - a well-designed experiment - clean data - appropriate, error-free analysis - perceptive observation (which may require several observers to point things out to each other and reach consensus, as radiologists often do when faced with difficult images) - generation of hypotheses consistent with the study observations and any other available observations - prioritization of those hypotheses - generation of design solutions that respond to the most likely hypothesis - implementation - bucket testing - if no improvement is seen, iterate with alternate hypotheses If someone fixates on a link for a unusually large time, does that mean they are confused by it? Or they aren't confused, but are trying to decide if its what they want? Or they know whether they want it or not but are considering something else? If the user's mental state matters to you, ask the user what it was. They may know. If they do not know, devise a more clever experiment. But sometimes, the user's mental state doesn't matter. We may have run the test because too few people were clicking on the link. We thought perhaps they didn't even look at the area of the page that contained the link. The tracker has refuted our hypothesis. We know that some people look straight at the link and still do not click it. Other data may be needed if we want to find out why. But the study was a success. It achieved its goal. Different inferences will lead to completely different design solutions. Are you saying it doesn't matter which inference (and therefore, which design solution) the observers choose? If the radiologists call your malignant tumor benign, or vice versa, you may receive the wrong treatment, which could be a costly mistake. But design changes that eye tracking studies inspire often entail simple modifications to layout, color, size, typeface, etc., that help to steer attention. They are often cheap to implement. If there are two competing inferences, you can often try both implied solutions. Of course, if you had both designs in mind (and particularly the one that ultimately proved to be best) before you ran the eye tracking study, then the study was a waste of time. If that is the situation you are in, and you never want to run a study that may simply confirm that you were right, then your point is valid. But it is not always the situation. There may be no unrefuted theory about why users are not clicking the link. There may be no considered designs that would increase clicks. There may be too many credible designs--more than one has the time and staff to implement and test. Or you may simply want to confirm other data or hunches. When you back an
Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
No, no! Don't take your toys and leave. Hey, personas aren't the only way to do design. Heck, I did a lot of design work without personas. It's just that I missed out on so much. My designs are so much better now. I am better able to get into the mind of the person who will be using the product instead of the person who makes the product. Personas really help get past a lot of mental block. It is a little hard to describe the magic that happens, but it is real. It's like seeing the chess table from a different angle. The upside-down ketchup bottle is hard to invent when you are trying to design from the production line floor. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Hoekman, Jr. Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:11 AM To: Jared M. Spool Cc: ixd-discussion Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful I've come to the conclusion that I'd be a much happier person if I stopped taking part in these conversations about personas. Most of them hinge on a basic understanding of something that no one will clearly define, and a difference in definitions of almost every key term in the debate. No matter how anyone spins it, we'll all keep trying to fit everyone else's ideas into our own world views, and it just never gets anywhere constructive. So, I'm just going to keep doing what I've been doing - designing successful experiences without personas, using methods that take half the time and money of the persona research and creation process - and if anyone wants to know more about how I consistently accomplish this, you can read the 3-part article that will soon appear on Peachpit.com. Feel free to keep debating, but I've got another client to make happy right now, so I'm off to do some persona-less design work. Cheers. -r- *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ 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 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ 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] Examples where personas are *not* useful
This is very true. It also happens with marketing and political campaign personas: witness how the media keyed on Susie the Soccer Mom from Bill Clinton's first election campaign. The cuteness factor needs to be addressed, especially in corporate cultures where fun acts as a discount inside conference rooms. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Barlow-Busch Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 5:46 PM To: ixd-discussion Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful I would suggest to those that make persona deliverables that the format, the template and the deliverable is a core reason why personas are having trouble being adopted properly at more places. I think Andrei's entirely correct with this suggestion. The format of personas is so... well, it's just so CUTE. Not surprisingly, a lot of people can't get past this fact. Oh, wook at the wittle customers. Dey're so cute! Who's dat big boy? Who's dat big girl? Ah, wook at the pictures. Oh! Dey even have *names*! This throws up barriers to adoption. Which is unfortunate, because much of the power of personas comes from our ability to process character and narrative; we're hard-wired to respond to that stuff. Scenarios address half the equation by introducing narrative, but they're more easily accepted in a business context because they aren't cute. -- Robert Barlow-Busch http://www.chopsticker.com *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ 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 *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ 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
