Well, I feel like I'm taking a huge risk here, both being late and new to the party and not being a degreed, practicing professional in this specific field, but I'm having trouble staying silent because I can't fully support Jared's assertions.
First he says that "A trained observer can get much of this information through what you call 'traditional' means." Yet the perception that I'f had in reading his responses here give me the impression--accurate or not--that eye trackers provide no additional useful information for a "trained observer." As a technical communication professional who has a formal degree in the field and has practiced for nearly two decades, the difference between the absolute statements and "much of the information" stood out. I don't claim to be an expert in eye tracking, but I do know that it's rare to have a situation where it's not good to have too much data, especially if the data is good. I do know, thanks to my training, the mechanics of how people actually read, that their eyes do not follow text but rather stop at points on the page called saccades. I understand that on web pages and in web and standalone applications, users' eyes scan similarly, not to read and comprehend, but to find. Although currently expensive and requiring specialized training, it seems to me the eye tracking data adds to the rest of the information that a competent user researcher can gather using other "traditional" methods. And although eye tracking data can be interpreted differently by different "experts," so too can other, non-eye tracking data. So if you don't believe in eye tracking, fine. But I'm not convinced that the data that the technique gathers isn't valuable, and even useful when combined with other data. (I should add that I don't believe that eye tracking data should be used in isolation.) I think it is *a* useful tool, certainly not the only useful tool, and can provide additional useful information that can only lead to better design. And isn't that the ultimate goal? Second, Jared said that "You can't tell from an eye tracker what the users 'sees'." True, but I think that assertion misses a point. Eye tracking data can lead researchers to investigate why users "looked" at a particular point, why they focused on a particular point, why they tracked in certain directions. They can then delve into whether anything at those points was actually "seen," and whether anything at those points was recognized and understood. Eye tracking can also discover whether areas that developers and designers *want* users to see are in fact looked at, which can lead to more questions from researchers. I don't think anyone can reasonably claim that an eye stopping on a particular point equates to its owner actually "seeing" anything there. And I agree that anyone who suggests that is "making shit up." Anyone who uses only eye tracking data to generate conclusions clearly isn't dong the job competently and completely. OK, we don't (yet) have developed best practices and theories for use of eye tracking technologies. (As far as I know anyway; I know too that there's an eye tracking lab at the University of Washington's department of Human Centered Design and Engineering (formerly Technical Communication), and it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that research done in that lab has found some best practices and theories.) But we do know that useful data can be captured, and used correctly, can improve test results. So then the question comes down to: Is it worth the investment? That's a question that only an individual company can decide. But if you've already decided to invest in usability, then you're (finally) already in a better mindset to make a better product. And to be honest, if you actually get nothing more out of it that get more members of the team observing your tests (as Jared suggests, it simply draws out the geeks), then that can only be a Good Thing. I know how hard it is to get programmers and other engineers to observe usability testing. And I also know how important it is to have them there. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
