Robert_Charlton - 10:21 pm on Aug 24, 2010 (gmt 0)
Interesting study, though I'd like to see more explanation about methodology, assumptions, and interpretation of data.
What the article doesn't make clear (and the graphics are shown too small to interpret) is the order of viewing, and how fixation time and number of fixations are parsed from the data.
Fixations are shown in milliseconds and are reported in fractions of milliseconds to two decimal places in the charts, way too precise IMO for this kind of experiment. There probably should be some rounding off for experimental error, with a +/- error range indicated.
It's also hard to know whether to attribute the greater number of fixations and fixation time for snippets, eg, simply to the greater number of words. If you considered, say, fixation time per word to be important, it's possible that snippets might actually be underperforming titles, since on Google, at any rate, snippets are generally at least twice as long as titles. That said, I feel that descriptions are very important for conversions. I'd like to see a stronger test to back that up.