The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Eye tracking in web search tasks: design implications
Abstract
An eye tracking study was conducted to evaluate specific design features for a prototype web portal application. This software serves independent web content through separate, rectangular, user-modifiable portlets on a web page. Each of seven participants navigated across multiple web pages while conducting six specific tasks, such as removing a link from a portlet. Specific experimental questions included (1) whether eye tracking-derived parameters were related to page sequence or user actions preceding page visits, (2) whether users were biased to traveling vertically or horizontally while viewing a web page, and (3) whether specific sub-features of portlets were visited in any particular order. Participants required 2-15 screens, and from 7-360+ seconds to complete each task. Based on analysis of screen sequences, there was little evidence that search became more directed as screen sequence increased. Navigation among portlets, when at least two columns exist, was biased towards horizontal search (across columns) as opposed to vertical search (within column). Within a portlet, the header bar was not reliably visited prior to the portlet's body, evidence that header bars are not reliably used for navigation cues. Initial design recommendations emphasized the need to place critical portlets on the left and top of the web portal area, and that related portlets do not need to appear in the same column. Further experimental replications are recommended to generalize these results to other applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback
Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2005) · Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval · doi:10.1145/1076034.1076063 · Cited by 1,408
In Google We Trust: Users’ Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x · Cited by 715
Colour appeal in website design within and across cultures: A multi-method evaluation
Cyr, D., Head, M., & Larios, H. (2010) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.08.005 · Cited by 511
Accurately Interpreting Clickthrough Data as Implicit Feedback
Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2017) · ACM SIGIR Forum · doi:10.1145/3130332.3130334 · Cited by 212
Gaze Path Stimulation in Retrospective Think-Aloud
Hyrskykari, A., Ovaska, S., Majaranta, P., Räihä, K.-J., & Lehtinen, M. (2008) · Journal of Eye Movement Research · doi:10.16910/jemr.2.4.5 · Cited by 118
Digital transformations of classrooms in virtual reality
Gao, H., Bozkir, E., Hasenbein, L., Hahn, J.-U., Göllner, R., & Kasneci, E. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445596 · Cited by 77
Balatsoukas, P., & Ruthven, I. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22707 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldberg, J. H., Stimson, M. J., Lewenstein, M., Scott, N., & Wichansky, A. M.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the symposium on Eye tracking research & applications - ETRA '02
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2002
- Pages
- 51
- OpenAlex
- W1981753533
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 0
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.