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).

What I learned from eyetracking -- Seth Godin

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, and incredibly wrong, 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