Largest Eye-Tracking study conducted exploring how survey respondents interact with range of onscreen question layouts, from basic to enhanced/rich media types.

1. 
Using Eye‐Tracking
to Advance Survey Research
bernie.malinoff@element‐54.com
Copyright 2010 element54 Inc. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute this document is granted subject to the following: The materials provided
herein are for internal, non-commercial use only, and any copies or portions thereof must include the copyright notice, and reference the author, element54.

2. Quick History of 'Eye Tracking'
In 1879 in Paris, Louis Emile Javal observed
that reading does not involve a smooth
sweeping of the eyes along the text (as
previously assumed), but a series of short
stops and quick simultaneous movements.

3. Measuring Attention & Engagement
• Visual gaze; single
FixaPons locaPon.
• simultaneous
Saccades movements of both eyes
in the same direcPon.

4. Eye Tracking

5. Eye‐Tracking Applications

6. Major R&D Initiatives in 2009
Data Consistency Respondent Usability
Jan ‘09 April/May ’09

7. Origin of online research:
‘Radio Button’ question types

8. Typical respondent experience
Onscreen
Respondent Layout
ExpectaPons
Response
PaTerns/
"Engagement Flatlining
&
Enjoyment"

9. Divergence/Variety of New Question Types
Sources: Spyglass Solutions/2x4 Research & Consulting

10. A Brief History of how we got here
Door‐ Mail CATI/ Online
to‐Door Phone
Methodology EvoluPon ….?

11. "1.0 vs. 2.0"
Using Eye Tracking for Survey Usability
... to better understand the destination, by examining the journey.

12. Drivers of Cooperation
Topic
Interest
Qnre Panel/
Length/ Client
IncenPve ReputaPon
Survey Respondent Visual
Invite CooperaPon Appeal

13. Eyes Don’t Lie ‐ Research Protocol
Eye Tracking
Recording
Interviewing

14. Eye Tracking ‐ 'Areas of Interest'

15. Eyes Don’t Lie ‐ Initial Findings
Inference vs. Instruction
Don’t interrupt me when I’m thinking!
Death by Ranking
Eyes Don't Lie ‐ Understanding FixaPons
Error Prevention & Recovery
Engagement Metrics

16. Inference vs. Instruction

17. Inference vs. Instruction
42% did not read
the quesPon
33% did not read
the "tradiPonal"
quesPon

18. Don’t Interrupt Me When I’m Thinking

19. Interpreting 'Fixations'

20. Fixation #1 – “Latent”

21. Fixation #2 – “Orientation”

22. Fixation #3 ‐ “Cognition”

23. 37/49 Respondents Click
Inside the Cognition Zone

24. Fixations … & Social Desirability?

25. Error Prevention & Recovery

26. Error Prevention & Recovery

27. Equal Ratings for ‘Engagement’ Metrics
1.0 2.0
Survey
Enjoyment 8.20 8.25
Ease of Use 8.86 8.85
Desire to
Repeat 7.02 6.56

28. Eyes Don’t Lie ‐ Implications
1. We must return to the usability principles which guided
paper survey design, not CATI design, to maximize
confidence in our data, and business decisions.
2. There are ways to make all quesPons/surveys more
appealing, intuiPve and future‐relevant, but these
improvements must not introduce new forms of bias and
should be tested before being fielded for the first Pme.
3. As an industry, we must devise and reinforce best
pracPces for online research interfaces, like we have for
so many elements of the research process.

29. Eyes Don’t Lie ‐ Implications
4. Responsible Innova0on is key to successful evoluPon
of web‐based interfaces.
• Decide who has the responsibility for respondent
usability, and provide them with the appropriate
skill set.
• Involve survey takers in the design process.
5. Simply thinking about these issues, and making small
changes will ensure healthier, longer‐term Online
research.

30. “The eye sees only
what the mind is
prepared to
comprehend”
~ Henri Bergson

31. bernie.malinoff@element‐54.com

Thank you
Copyright 2010 distribute this document is granted subject to the following: The materials provided herein are for internal, non-commercial use only, and any
copies or portions thereof must include the copyright notice, and reference the author, element54.