Eye tracking is more than just eye candy

It has recently become common practice to bundle eye tracking technology as standard with usability testing. Not only is this somewhat surprising, it is also very disappointing, because it sends out the misleading message that eye tracking is simply an attractive accessory to usability testing, in the same way that a pair of earrings might complement a necklace.

At a time when usability testing has practically become a commodity, usability companies should be striving to provide clients with customised solutions that answer questions directly and resolve specific problems. Such an approach requires a level of sophistication that hinges on choosing the right set of tools and applying them appropriately, rather than using multiple tools for the sake of the aesthetic impact of the deliverable.

There are several reasons why this precise technology is being devalued in this way. Eye trackers can now be found in most usability labs and are becoming so user-friendly that participants can almost be forgiven for thinking they could record themselves. Furthermore, there seems to be an attitude of “If others are doing it, why shouldn’t I?” among usability companies. This stance is erroneously advocating that careless bundling of eye tracking is the right thing to do just because everyone is doing it, when the opposite is actually the case. A business acting in this way displays a striking lack of knowledge about eye tracking, what it should be used for and what resulting eye tracking data can reveal that standard usability testing cannot.

Providing eye tracking as standard with usability testing is the same as blindly offering card sorting, user groups, site mapping or any other valued process as standard. Of course we all know that card sorting and usability testing, for example, are two entirely different components of a set of many tools and that they are used to extract different types of information, which in turn answer different types of questions. They can, of course, be used together, but that should only be the case if it provides value. The exact same ethic should be applied to eye tracking.

It’s time for usability companies to stop ‘throwing in’ pretty pictures with eye tracking data as freebies with every test they perform and adopt a less careless approach that does not assume the client is naïve. My nine-month old son likes to look at pretty pictures when I read to him at night. Even if he is totally unaware of what they mean, there’s no denying he likes them. For a more mature audience, top-shelf magazines are another example of pictures mattering more than information.

For the sake of the industry, usability companies must start acting like consultants in the true sense of the word: using knowledge and experience to deliver the right solution to the client. That starts by choosing the right tools for the job, interpreting the data they provide with conscientiousness and translating that information into a clear message that genuinely benefits the client.