Here's something that's guaranteed to make Jared crazy:
10 Web Form Design Guidelines Based on Eyetracking
http://www.smileycat.com/miaow/archives/001750.php
:-)
Not only were these guidelines around before eye tracking, one of them is even
wrong. (I am speaking of the one about left-aligning
eye tracking provides much needed razzmatazz to impress clueless
people.. who don%u2019t understand usability. - Jakob Neilsen
@will. That's cool. I think Jakob nails it here: it can be used as a
visual to all the good stuff you already eek out with proven usability
methods.
. . . . . . . . . .
Those following this thread might be interested in a study just
published in the JUS that used eyetracking to compare newspaper
websites and tv news websites.
http://www.upassoc.org/upa_publications/jus/2009august/gibbs1.html
To me, this is interesting not so much for its conclusions (which,
Jared - After reviewing the video, I was hoping you would expand your
thoughts on the validity of eye tracking data and ouija boards and
correlation to thought processes.
You've suggested that fixations don't offer any
evidence/insight/it's false etc.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Guy Redwood wrote:
Jared - After reviewing the video, I was hoping you would expand your
thoughts on the validity of eye tracking data and ouija boards and
correlation to thought processes.
You've suggested that fixations don't offer any
evidence/insight/it's
On Aug 25, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Nick Gould wrote:
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
On Aug 25, 2009, at 5:44 AM, Guy Redwood wrote:
That's why the in-depth understanding comes from using the
eyetracking data in a retrospective review session with the users.
When you play back eye tracking to the user, they tell you why they
did things.
We don't sit there looking at heatmaps,
Jared, we don't badger and we don't make things up.
Users are very relaxed and chat freely in our retrospective sessions.
That's the point.
Are you assuming that we need to badger users because that's what
you do in your think aloud sessions? Is that because the user is
trying to do something,
Wow, just as I was thinking that this thread was getting a little
tiresome and unproductive, I discovered that it actually started in
2005!
http://www.ixda.org/search.php?tag=eyetracking
Jared - it's really not fair as you have had way more practice
attacking eyetracking than I have had
On Aug 25, 2009, at 7:21 AM, Guy Redwood wrote:
Here's a video of some retail testing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38w95lKFIWc
What do you find irrelevant about the eye tracking?
I didn't see anything in the video that surprised me or informed me
about users interacting with the Amazon
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
I'm starting too see that both camps are not open to persuasion
@ritchielee Have to disagree. This thread has changed the way I think
about eye tracking. I'm not saying I'm now for or against it with
any fervor, but am thinking about it more critically. And isn't that
the point of these
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
I need to brush up on my 'dealing with phobics' skills. A lot of the
positions against eye tracking are unreasonable. There is a clear
correlation between what people look at and what they comprehend. Why
would anybody deny it? I've never been very good at reading things
I've not looked at!
At
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:28 PM, g...@simpleusability.com wrote:
I need to brush up on my 'dealing with phobics' skills. A lot of the
positions against eye tracking are unreasonable. There is a clear
correlation between what people look at and what they comprehend.
A 1:1 correlation? What
On Aug 22, 2009, at 2:28 AM, g...@simpleusability.com wrote:
There is a clear
correlation between what people look at and what they comprehend.
No. No there isn't. If there's a correlation, it's definitive unclear.
Please, clear it up for all of us.
At the last eye tracking conference in
On Aug 21, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Nick Gould wrote:
Seems that, given your professional impermeability relating to this
issue, you could just leave well enough alone; give your opinion
when asked but otherwise respect the right of others to run their
businesses as they see fit. Anyway...
On Aug 22, 2009, at 9:51 AM, Guy wrote:
At the last eye tracking conference in Frankfurt we discussed the
issues with what poor research was doing to the reputation of the
eye tracking industry.
Perhaps you should've been discussing the harm that eye tracking does
to real research.
Hi!
I have an SMI system in our facility in downtown Montreal.
I'm very interested in the discussion. The pros and cons of using ET
for usability testing seem pretty well described above.
At the same time, I dislike what I understood as the suggestion that
some practitioners are using ET to
On Aug 20, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Elizabeth Buie wrote:
I do have a question for you, Jared, to help me understand your
point: Are you
saying that we don't need to know how much time people spend with
their eyes
off the road while trying to text, or that we can get those data
without doing
On Aug 20, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Kate Caldwell wrote:
I have an SMI system in our facility in downtown Montreal.
I'm very interested in the discussion. The pros and cons of using ET
for usability testing seem pretty well described above.
At the same time, I dislike what I understood as the
At 9:37 AM -0400 8/21/09, Jared Spool wrote:
Thanks for the clear statement, Jared.
So, to answer your question, if you're talking about research from a
scientific standpoint, I think the eye tracking equipment is a great idea. Add
it to a quality driving simulator and you can learn a ton.
On Aug 20, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
To toss this little nugget into the mix as some valid if minor
counterpoint to Jared's stated opposition to eye-tracking is really
a disservice to how much Jared actually knows about this topic, and
how much experience and expertise
On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Elizabeth Buie wrote:
Thanks for the clear statement, Jared.
So, to answer your question, if you're talking about research from
a scientific standpoint, I think the eye tracking equipment is a
great idea. Add it to a quality driving simulator and you can
At 10:04 AM -0400 8/21/09, Jared Spool wrote:
Apparently, I've hit a nerve. :)
You stole my line. :-)
Elizabeth
--
Elizabeth Buie
Luminanze Consulting, LLC
tel: +1.301.943.4168
www.luminanze.com
@ebuie
Welcome to the Interaction
Discuss] Eye-Tracker software/hardware recommendations
On Aug 20, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Kate Caldwell wrote:
I have an SMI system in our facility in downtown Montreal.
I'm very interested in the discussion. The pros and cons of using ET
for usability testing seem pretty well described above
Oh, I'd love to know this.
On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:40 AM, Jared Spool wrote:
I'd be interested in hearing the disclaimers you give your clients
before presenting inferences from eye tracking data.
Cheers!
Todd Zaki Warfel
Principal Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information.
On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Kate Caldwell wrote:
I ALWAYS explain to clients that[...]
Well, based on these disclaimers, I really don't see any value in ET
at all. Instead, it leaves me wondering why I should use ET at all.
I won't claim to be an ET expert, but I have used it in the
From: Todd Zaki Warfel li...@toddwarfel.com
To: Kate Caldwell caldwell_k...@yahoo.ca
Cc: Jared Spool jsp...@uie.com; disc...@ixda.org
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 4:55:09 PM
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Eye-Tracker software/hardware recommendations
On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Kate
Issues aside, this is an amazing discussion! Great points being made
on both sides.
So, for the hopper, a statement and a question for @jmspool.
First, the suggestion that Jared's position on eyetracking is a
result of his anxiety about what the technology will mean for his
methodologies /
On Aug 21, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Nick Gould wrote:
You seem
unwilling to admit the possibility that those who find value in the
technology are anything but thieves and charlatans (or children
playing with toys).
I'm willing to accept that anyone who finds value in it, does indeed
find value in
What sort of ROI are you wanting? A 60% uplift in sales because we
understood how users were subconsciously making decisions? 22% uplift
in sales because we saw the relationship between the use of language
and the task? All 'stuff' that think-aloud wouldn't show you.
The way I see it, the world
On Aug 19, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Guy Redwood wrote:
Camp 4
Those that use it as a core tool for user experience research and
possibly don't worry too much about the flat-earthers that are
missing a huge opportunity to get inside the users' heads.
Which are you?
How about Camp 5?
Those who have
At 4:30 PM -0400 8/20/09, Jared Spool wrote:
However, let's keep clear on what the actual data from eye tracking tells us.
It can't tell us what the user sees. It can't tell us what the user doesn't
see. It only tells us what they gaze at, which from my experience of working
with the
Good point both of you.
Really, what it comes down to to is the understanding of the
difference between seeing and looking.
And knowing which data you are attempting to gather, will probably
help you decide what methodology to use.
On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Elizabeth Buie wrote:
At
On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Elizabeth Buie wrote:
I know that's not what you're talking about Jared, so I'm not really
arguing
against you. I'm just pointing out that there are some cases where
it *is*
helpful -- even necessary -- to know where people are looking, and
for how
long. Or,
And I think that calling a willing research participant in a simulated
environment, a Darwin Award candidate is a disservice to all those
that take part in our research!
On Aug 20, 2009, at 2:04 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
It doesn't take expensive eye-tracking devices to determine that
That simulation does not even come close to accurately simulating
driving while texting. I don't want to admit how I know that.
Maybe if you were trying to send a text while competing in a NASCAR
event or something.
In the ET-texting-while-driving case, the data could be used to test
whether
At 5:17 PM -0400 8/20/09, Jared Spool wrote:
[regarding driver studies]
Using eye tracking in this research doesn't add any value to any of the data
we already have.
You may well be right, and certainly you know a lot more about eye tracking
than I do. Let me say a little more about what I'm
I'm starting too see that both camps are not open to persuasion; and
I'll admit I'm still rediculously far from accepting any worthwhile
ROI.
@jay. We know users cannot verbalise their eye movements; and we know
they scan everywhere at break-neck speed looking for something to
click. We can
When used together with other user experience research, Eye tracking
offers tremendous value for improving products.
Eye tracking measures unconscious behavior - and provides data that
people simply cannot verbalize in other common user research methods,
especially think aloud usability testing
Jared:
When a consultant looks at eye tracking results
and says, The user clearly sees X
but they don't see Y, they are making **it up.
And using their tools badly.
What's with the hate campaign on eye-trackers, Jared?
This reminds me of the olden days when we first had video. It was an
On Aug 15, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Jared Spool wrote:
User research, when done well, isn't a science at all. It's an
engineering tool. If you have to demonstrate its scientific validity
(and deal with the fact that the people you're working with perceive
it as a soft science), then you've
On Aug 15, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Jared Spool wrote:
When a consultant looks at eye tracking results and says, The user
clearly sees X but they don't see Y, they are making shit up.
What eye tracking doesn't tell you is why they were focusing on X.
Okay, so, yeah, their eyes were gazing at
On Aug 17, 2009, at 4:23 AM, Caroline Jarrett wrote:
Jared:
When a consultant looks at eye tracking results
and says, The user clearly sees X
but they don't see Y, they are making **it up.
And using their tools badly.
Yet, that's what they do. Remember Spool's First Law of Competency: It
Cards on the table.
I love eye tracking. It%u2019s the sharpest tool in the box for user
experience research. It%u2019s the best way to observe natural
behaviour. Think-aloud in usability testing is unnatural and can
create false data.
More cards on the table.
I%u2019m appalled at some of the
Hello, Kristen
In our lab we have a Tobii eye tracker, using Tobii Studio.
An eyetrack study is not enough for analyzing usability, but it can be
very usefull to collect specific data about screens layouts and
interface elements positioning.
If you have budget enough, I do recomend an eyetracker
I have limited experience with eye-tracking but, for me, you haven't
covered the most important reasons to use it.
1. Big bosses love it... it's a persuader it's science-y but
funner.
2. Talk Aloud, when a participant is watching their video, becomes
Post Talk Aloud and they can tell you
I think a solid example is needed to vouch any true benefits beyond
agency differentiation. Monitoring attention in such pinpoint detail
seems a distraction for all parties, from what are probably
fundamental design issues. Observation, interview and heuristics are
much stronger methods; which
Great discussion!! Really enjoying all the thought and insights (on
both sides).
In general, I have to side on the pro-ET side here. The %u201Cmale
refrigerator blindness%u201D and peripheral vision problems are
important, and must be considered. But don't these problems have
corollaries in
Hi Kristen,
Apologies from coming late. I've had some experience with eye
tracking during my scientific work and to be honest, it probably
wasn't worth the effort. Eye tracking measures immediate visual
focus (and not necessarily attention - it is possible that the two
can be split on occasions)
Porter; IxDA
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Eye-Tracker software/hardware recommendations
On Aug 14, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Joshua Porter wrote:
Interesting take from Google on their use of eye trackers:
In addition to search research, we also use eye-tracking to study the
usability of other products
Eye-tracking is just one of many techniques, and should never be a
replacement for observation and exploration of real users'
experiences and motivations. It does require inferring what the user
was thinking about as their eye moved, while the eye movement itself
could have been caused by any
On Aug 15, 2009, at 8:11 AM, Will Hacker wrote:
Eye-tracking is just one of many techniques, and should never be a
replacement for observation and exploration of real users'
experiences and motivations.
I hear that.
However, its cost is so much larger than the other techniques you have
to
Thank you for your responses so far!
I have read several forums that have debated the pro's and con's of
eye-tracking in general. Personally, I am a proponent of
eye-tracking, and I am looking for others who hold the same opinion.
I would like to know which systems labs are currently using
Look, nobody said eye-tracking is a substitute for talk aloud, and
nobody said it was a perfect methodology. We use it in conjunction
with talk aloud for many of our tests and we find it actually does
provide additional value. There are certainly issues: 1) the
technology is still buggy, and 2)
On Aug 15, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Nick Gould wrote:
Where I part company, respectfully, with Jared is in his assertion
(made here and elsewhere, forcefully) that ET provides no information
that can't be learned through traditional means. That's just
factually false. Eye tracking tells you where
Oof, it's late, but hell, I'll take another swing... :-)
Jared, everything you say is true regarding the limitations of the
tool. I stated as much myself in the earlier post.
Perhaps see was a loaded term to use as I didn't mean to imply
that we understood the user's cognitive process - just
Aw, sorry Kristen in all the fuss I missed your real question in
there... We use the Tobii system. Get in touch directly if you are
interested in discussing our experiences in more detail.
Best,
NG
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new
I am currently setting up a user research lab and am looking into
purchasing eye-tracker software/hardware. I'm wondering what other
labs use and the pros/cons of those systems.
Thanks!
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association
] On Behalf Of
Kristen
Sent: 13 August 2009 11:23 AM
To: disc...@ixda.org
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Eye-Tracker software/hardware recommendations
...
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ... disc
On Aug 13, 2009, at 10:23 AM, Kristen wrote:
I am currently setting up a user research lab and am looking into
purchasing eye-tracker software/hardware. I'm wondering what other
labs use and the pros/cons of those systems.
I'm with William. I suggest you get a Oiuja Board instead of an eye-
Interesting take from Google on their use of eye trackers:
In addition to search research, we also use eye-tracking to study the
usability of other products, such as Google News and Image Search. For
these products, eye-tracking helps us answer questions, such as Is
the 'Top Stories' link
On Aug 14, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Joshua Porter wrote:
Interesting take from Google on their use of eye trackers:
In addition to search research, we also use eye-tracking to study
the usability of other products, such as Google News and Image
Search. For these products, eye-tracking helps us
64 matches
Mail list logo
