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) the analysis can be difficult and time consuming.
Issue #1 is being resolved and will ultimately work itself out. For issue #2 it is the responsibility of the user (us) to deploy the eye-tracker in a way that is sensible, given its limitations and to exercise restraint in our interpretation of the results -- i.e. don't "read-into" the results, just report what the users saw and didn't see. We NEVER claim to know what the user was thinking (i.e. we don't "infer" from these observations), unless the ET data stimulates a discussion during talk aloud and the user reports their impressions or thoughts directly. I agree with Jared that user research is not a science. Clients are not confused about this fact (normally) where talk aloud usability is concerned. However, they are quite tempted to view eye-tracking as a somehow more scientific and therefore more valid methodology. Again, it's our responsibility to be straightforward about the tool's capabilities and shortcomings. I also agree with Jared that the hardware, software, and training investment associated with ET are significant given the current state of the technology. And, yes, you can get GREAT results as a user researcher without spending this money. Kristen, you will need to decide whether you and your clients will value the results enough to justify the cost. However, do not think that just buying the machine is enough. There is no user manual and the learning curve is steep. We have heard of many firms that bought the eye tracker and it sits collecting dust in the corner... 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 users look on the page; where attention clusters and the paths they take as they explore. Users can't tell you this information. And when the question you are asking is "do they see X?" the eye tracker can give you your answer. It's that simple. We, and our clients, have found these answers to be valuable. Moreover we feel that thinking through these issues has broadened our understanding of how users interact with designs and how to produce the most actionable results for our clients. Anyway - that's my opinion and my firm's experience. Nick Gould CEO Catalyst Group www.catalystnyc.com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=44684 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
