But what does it all mean? Understanding eye-tracking results (Part 1)
Part I: Misinterpreting the data
In 2000, the Poynter Institute released their first study analyzing how users view online news websites. Yet, 7 years after eye-tracking made this first major impression on the usability and marketing industries, there still seems to be a lot of confusion over what eye-tracking data can actually tell you about how users interact with your site.
Vague descriptions of methodologies and misinterpretation of eye-tracking data has lead to skepticism about the validity of eye-tracking in usability and marketing research.
Getting answers to common questions
In this next series of blog entries, I thought I’d take a shot at dispelling some small fraction of the confusion surrounding eye-tracking research. Over the next few weeks I’ll address some recurring questions I get about our research, and the optimal use of eye-tracking studies.
Questions like:
• What is a heatmap… really?
• How to read a scan path… and what is a scan path?
• How do you get the most out of eye-tracking analysis? (What many commercial software packages won’t tell you)
• Basic eye movement terminology and why is it important when interpreting results?
Bad web design is not a good thing.
Just to start us off, I thought I’d share one of my favorite misinterpretations of eye-tracking data. This originally appeared in a blog entry last year:
I think web surfing is a hunting activity. The eye is looking for anamolies, for things that don't belong. (That might be why the word anomaly, spelled wrong in the previous sentence, got your focus). […] One of the takeaways is that bad web design might actually be a good thing! Slightly bad design isn't familiar. It's off. It demands attention. (Very bad design demands the 'back' button, of course).
I have a love/hate relationship with Seth Godin’s article. I love it because it is a perfect cautionary tale about why we should take the time to stop and understand data. Quick assumptions (especially based on eye-movement recordings) can lead to some surprising conclusions. This erroneous interpretation has gotten quite a bit of attention, and has even been mentioned in meetings I’ve had with several designers.
So just a few notes to get us started:
• Bad web design does not encourage viewer attention. It discourages the user from making an effort to understand web content, and only succeeds in getting users lost and frustrated.
• Novel interface design does change looking patterns. However, as long as a website or email is well designed and intuitive, users will learn to navigate it quickly.
• Individual search patterns should almost never be considered alone. The video is interesting and fun to watch, but cannot by itself give useful information about how a broad range of people view the site.
• Individual gaze plot data is always noisy. This is because we normally move our eye 3 times a second. A group of gaze plots must be examined to find patterns in page viewing.
Useful References:
Poynter Studies
2005 Enquiro, Eyetools, Did-It Study -- Google
Article by Teresa Hernandez - Eyetools, Inc.
Comments