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 talk-aloud (e.g., unnatural behavior or telling the interviewer what you think they want to hear) and every other method? I must say that I think the characterization of ET data interpretation as %u201Cmaking shit up%u201D is unfair for two reasons. First, making shit up is the basis of data interpretation. Couldn't giving several %u201Cexperts%u201D the same talk aloud protocol and test interface also lead to more than one story? Claiming that ET interpretation is more susceptible to variance might be more fair (and less abrasive). Secondly, the reliability of analysis is only as good at the analyst. If the experts surveyed could not tell that the data with different thresholds were the same, or even worse did not ask what the thresholds were, I think the problem may lie with their approach to analysis (or level of expertise). A true expert knows the limitations of ET (and any method they use, including talk-aloud and task-based protocols, both of which have plenty of limitations) as well as important ways to expose and deal with those limitations. My take is that ET work should be reserved for specific situations, and ET is best used to complement other methods. Handled with care, I think ET can provide quite a bit of insight. Jesse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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
