logging in or signing up Keeping it real while thinking aloud. Ensuring cre symetria Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT lite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: Embed: Flash iPad Dynamic Copy Does not support media & animations Automatically changes to Flash or non-Flash embed WordPress Embed Customize Embed URL: Copy Thumbnail: Copy The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 169 Category: Science & Tech.. License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: February 06, 2008 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description The presentation concentrates on the issues of think-aloud method as well as misconceptions about eyetracking in user research and usability testing Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript „Keeping it real” while thinking aloudEnsuring credibility of eye-tracking usability studies employing think aloud method. : „Keeping it real” while thinking aloud Ensuring credibility of eye-tracking usability studies employing think aloud method. Wojtek Chojnacki Tobii User meeting, 2007-04-18 Agenda: Agenda About Symetria Think aloud method Misconceptions about eyetracking Problems with eyetracking in think aloud studies Context of situations as an important analysis factor Concept of checkpoints About Symetria: About Symetria Usability E-marketing Media buying Usability evaluation User-Centered Design Eyetracking analysis (layouts, ads) Usability consulting Marketing communication on the Web Web campaigns E-mail marketing Market analysis Media planning Ad production Media buying Monitoring Design & planning Production & promotion Broadcasting Think aloud as conducted by Symetria: Think aloud as conducted by Symetria Trunk test: What is this site? What is it for? What is your first impression? Tasks: The more users talk, the better User can stop and explain No heavy time pressure Task fulfillment levels as usability measuresEyetracking misconceptions: Eyetracking misconceptions Eyetracking results can be obtained by simply summarizing data for each page Every piece of data is important The more data gathered, the more accurate the results Eyetracking & think aloud convergence – problems: Eyetracking & think aloud convergence – problems Result analysis errors User specific problems Speech and gaze correlation Eyetracking & thinking aloud convergence – problems: Eyetracking & thinking aloud convergence – problems Speech and gaze correlation Users tend to look at the elements they are describing, influencing the results Questions asked influence reactions – this is not always intended Eyetracking & thinking aloud convergence – problems: Eyetracking & thinking aloud convergence – problems User specific problems Overeager users – concentrate too much on talking Distractible users – forget about the task, Tendency to describe the page element by element Eyetracking & thinking aloud convergence – problems: Eyetracking & thinking aloud convergence – problems Result analysis errors Summarizing data without inspecting the context Mixing gaze data for different types of activities User describes User operates page screen actions reactions task 1 task 2 task nEyetracking misconceptions corrected: Eyetracking misconceptions corrected Eyetracking is only a tool enhancing the study Gaze data cannot be summarized without analyzing the context It is not important to track the whole study, but specific moments Users that concentrate on talking make results unreliable„Keeping it real” during the study: „Keeping it real” during the study Don’t push users to talk Ask users to describe their reactions, not their actions The recording is enough to understand what happened It is not important for user to know why he/she did something In case of overeager users, suggest concentrating on the tasks Plan ahead what questions to ask on pages which will be analyzed Planning eyetracking analysis for thinking aloud studies: Planning eyetracking analysis for thinking aloud studies Typical situations can be distinguished for each task Online store – user looks for a 2GB mp3 player: Home page Recommended buyings Product description Product list Another Product description Shipment info Product description Shopping cart Checkout Concept of checkpoints: Concept of checkpoints An instance of user interaction with a page/type of pages that happens in a specific context defined before the study Example: „Product list page” checkpoint Type of checkpoint: task fulfillment Purpose of interaction: user is looking for a mp3 player Condition: User is seeing a product list for the first time Hypothesis: user looks at text labels rather than iconsTypes of checkpoints: Types of checkpoints Free interaction checkpoints: Home page Products page Task fulfillment checkpoints: Registration form Product description Question-response checkpoints: What page is currently displayed? How would you go around contacting the site’s owner? Conclusion: Conclusion Plan situations in which eyetracking data will be comparable between the users Plan questions to ask During the study, look for situations identified before Don’t summarize results automaticallyThank you for your attentionWojtek Chojnacki email@example.com: Thank you for your attention Wojtek Chojnacki firstname.lastname@example.org You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.