Beta — We’re reformatting our articles to work with the new site, but this is one hasn’t been done yet; it may contain formatting issues. No need to report this. We’re working on it.

Testing Web Sites with Eye-Tracking

by Will Schroeder
on September 1, 1998

Thanks to some recent usability studies we conducted using an eye-tracking system,
we now have real evidence of where users actually look when they view a web

It’s clear that users quickly learn to look where they expect to find content.
They also quickly learn to avoid areas where they don’t see—or expect—what
they’re looking for, including banner ads and parts of the page outside the
central area.

Where Did Users Look?

Our client wanted to know how much attention users would pay to several areas
of a prototype web page — and thus to the content of each area (see figure).
With the eye tracker, we monitored how much time users looked at each area.

Image showing page are breakup.

To determine where users looked on a prototype page, we tracked
their eye movements within these areas. Users typically looked first in the
center, then to the left, then to the right. When they encountered ads in the
Center Area, they quickly learned to stop at the borders—and then look

The figure shows the design grid for the client’s index and navigation pages.
We asked users to look for specific information on the site. When deciding
which link to click, users typically looked first in the center area, then
in the left panel, then in the right column. Users spent an average of 11 seconds
on each of the pages we tested.

Our users were more likely to investigate areas outside the Center Area when
they spent more time searching for the correct link, or when they visited the
page for the second or third time in a task.

Scan Patterns Were Similar

All the users spent the same proportion of time looking at each area. This
similarity of behavior surprised us. We think it means that they all applied
similar criteria in deciding on the relative importance of the tested areas—the
likelihood each area would contain the link or information they wanted.

New and experienced web users scanned essentially the same way. At first,
the new user scanned pages from left to right, as if reading a book. But he
quickly changed to the center–left–right sequence.

He needed only two or three page visits to learn where to find the “good stuff”—and
how to avoid less-interesting (to him) material. He looked at the browser controls
more than the experienced users did, but was otherwise unremarkable. We had
only a single new-to-the-web user, but this is an interesting pattern to watch

Because these users so quickly adopted the center-left-right strategy, we
believe the experienced users—who used it immediately—had learned the behavior
through their earlier visits to other web sites.

This suggests that designers may not need to design pages differently for
new web users, but we’d need more tests to confirm this.

Users Don’t Go to the Bottom

Users rarely looked at what we called the Study Area just above the browser’s
status line. Users often found what they wanted before getting to this area.
Interestingly, if they wanted to see information from this area, they scrolled
to bring it higher on the screen rather than looking at the bottom.

Some users failed to find content that began within this area; they apparently
assumed that anything important would begin in the center area. For these users,
the “fold” was 2/3 of the way down the first screen, not at the bottom. Users
may not look where they don’t expect useful material.

New Scans for Some Changes

We tested several variations of the site’s prototype page layout to see if
they’d alter user behavior. When the designers changed the proportions and
content of the three main areas only slightly, users kept the same scan pattern.
Horizontal and vertical grid changes of 6–to–12 pixels (1/8 inch at the resolution
we tested) had no apparent effect on users.

On the other hand, all users immediately detected a change that narrowed
the left column about 30 pixels (1/3 inch) and used a heavier font. Most users
scanned this changed area as soon as it appeared and read the content.

Users apparently will reevaluate their scan strategy when they detect a design
change of this magnitude.

This argues against the design strategy of using a consistent grid on all
pages—it may cause users to miss content of interest.

Users seem to notice changes somewhere between 12 and 30 pixels, but we didn’t
test for this, so we don’t know how big the change must be before users notice.

What Attracted Users

Using direct observations as well as videotapes of user behavior, we found

  • Bright colors and animation attract users’ eyes. This is not a new finding,
    but it is interesting to actually see it happen. The gaze cursor flicks to
    the animation, dwells for an instant, and then returns to content.
  • Eye gaze often stopped at the borders around ads (the bottom of ads at
    the top of the page and the top of those near the bottom). To users, these
    lines apparently indicate content that is unimportant to their task.

The Role of Peripheral Vision

The eye tracker tells us where the users direct their central vision, the
part of the visual field that can discriminate fine detail. But peripheral
vision clearly plays a role. We can’t measure how much, but we must account
for peripheral vision in interpreting what users see. For example:

  • Users rarely looked directly at the scrollbar; their gaze peaked considerably
    to the left of it. This shows that they don’t look at the scrollbar—even
    when using it. Peripheral vision obviously helped.
  • Ads apparently attracted users only when they related to the current task—even
    if the content interested users (but was irrelevant to the task). For instance,
    a lover of old automobiles was not attracted to an ad featuring a picture
    of an antique car. These observations are further evidence that peripheral
    vision plays a role: users somehow determined if an ad interested them before
    they looked directly at it.