Andre,
In all of the discussion, the initial question got unanswered:
* Is eyetracking too expensive? *
Expensive is all relative. Currently, you have three options:
1) outsourced data collection and analysis: you can have someone expert in
eyetracking collect and analyze your data for you.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Oh, oh, oh, I know—what we need is eye tracking with mind reading.
Now, that's useful.
This is not too far fetched.
Jared is right: there is no 100% correlation between eye fixation and locus
of attention (or
And here is one company, which can do the mind reading for you (as a side
project they can find out what your test subjects think about Saddam, W.
Bush, their reaction to pain etc.):
http://ahe6.tripod.com/cognitive.eng/id45.html
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Oleh Kovalchuke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
, 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
On Apr 22, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
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
Todd wrote:
Oh, oh, oh, I know%u2014what we need is eye tracking with mind
reading. Now, that's useful.
Hah! If we had mind reading, we wouldn't need the eye tracker.
Jared
Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Jared M. Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Sounds like what's missing here is a set of consistent, objective and
reliable guidelines for interpreting eye-tracking data (and
potentially usability findings in general).
For example a fixation of an a priori specified minimum duration on a
link in conjunction with a user failing to click
On Apr 20, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Christopher Fahey wrote:
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
Eye-tracking should not be used on its own—if used at all, it
In the end, it's on what people click, which is really important.
And even more important is the information people are really looking for and
the findability
of that information.
It all comes down to offering the right information content in a nice way.
Without the right information, your
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Have seen the phenomenon where because someone is using Eye Tracking
Equipment they are automatically given more status or overused
because of the coolness factor of just having the equipment
(independent of what the results mean and how other methods can help
compliment the results)
Also
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! 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
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
ists.interactiond
esigners.com Subject
[IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too
expensive or complicated
It does have value as a secondary diagnostic tool. In the context of
usability testing, eye tracking does not determine the presence of a
usability problem, but helps determine what led to that problem in
conjunction with performance data, faciliator observations and user
self-reporting.
For
...oops I meant Design B would be the better option (assuming less
visual workload is preferable).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=28208
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andre
Charland
Sent: 18 April 2008 00:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Is Eye Tracking too expensive or complicated?
Hey All,
I just put together about Eye Tracking
(http://www.insideria.com/2008/04
Eye tracking is very expensive for what it delivers, and, as with all
analytics, data interpretation can be difficult because you know nothing
about user motivation or intent. IMHO, analytics tools like session
recording and click maps can provide somewhat similar data for a MUCH lower
cost, both
31 matches
Mail list logo
