User experience and scientific methods

By James Coston

In a series of articles for UX Matters I’ll be looking at the implications of introducing a new scientific technique into UX without formally explaining the process behind it.

This series for UX Matters will look at the impact this has had on forcing other practitioners and agencies to (often) unknowingly badly fit the new technique to the field.

Part 1: Eyetracking

The first article focuses on eye tracking. It starts by talking about how introducing a technique without releasing your methodology damages the industry and warps a client’s perception of UX.

It covers how many agencies sell eyetracking as a core service and ultimately undermine any true value it has by implying it’s the minimum standard for testing.

The article looks at the real value of eyetracking and explains why it’s limited within our field and why the way our industry functions makes it hard to truly gain valid data.

Read the first article on Eyetracking in full on UX Matters.

What do you think?