Study of Eye Movement Online

wired magazine report

[tedster]

Interesting article from Wired Magazine about an eye movement study [wired.com] of website users.

The study, which used small cameras to track the way online readers' eyes scan websites, found that surfers focus first on text, ignoring photos and graphics totally, only returning to them -- if at all -- after reading the text.

Magazine and newspaper readers, by contrast, check out photos and graphics first, then get on with reading.

[Nick_W]

Just goes to prove "content is King" I almost never bother with anything but the text, headlines etc always catch my eye first of course.

Nick

[bigjohnt]

Jakob Neilsen has been saying this for years. Great to have it proven. Now I can tell my "pure design, no concept of text" designers where to go... to see the article of course. :)

Back in my pre-internet days, it was an argument that took place over EVERY clients ad.. What was more important, the Visual, or the text. Guess the designers were right, in print, but not on the web.

As a non-designer, this is great news.

[brotherhood of LAN]

Interesting bit about banner ads too, people pay more attention to them than other graphics. Adds to the concept of branding through advertising - for free! (CPC)

[toolman]

>>>>And the thing that catches their attention when they jump from site to site is text -- well-written text, preferably

Probably means "chunking" the info well and keeping the scan distances less than 400 pixels wide with plenty of white space as opposed to having Hemingway-calibre writing skills.

[joshie76]

This is a (relatively) old study now (May 2000) which has been brought up a number of times on WebmasterWorld before... I've since seen it referred to and criticised several times and by several people including jakob nielsen [useit.com] - use at your own discretion but with caution.

J

[tbear]

Hmmmm........ interesting.
We must of course bear in mind that interpretations are just that, not proofs.
I like the bit about <"The Web will kill newspapers?" >
LOL
Didn't they say the same about radio and then TV. We all gotta make a livin', even the researchers..... ;)
I don't know if time has an effect on the results (not interpretations). I would guess not so much, but what do I know¿
By the way did anyone else get really p****d off with the Dell banner that caused me to scroll back up and have to start all over again with the concentration? Banners.....sdvlialwidxxx
tbear

[shakty]

all you text loving ppl take notice,
the article does not mean that text should not be "designed" for easier reading and punctuating points - i think text design ("typography") in general is extremley importnat.
good mixtures of several sized headers, bold & italique text and HRs are a must in my opinion.

[tbear]

Hiya shakty, I'm sure it's been said, but welcome.
I agree with you.
I found a site with lots of typographic information about 3 years ago. I'ts quite amazing the studies that have been done about how we recognise, read and interpret text.
I guess if the correct info is presented correctly on a banner, then I wouldn't tend to try to ignore them so often. :)

[pleeker]

It seems to me that the most important aspect of this article that people here seem to be missing is that the study deals with people using online news sites. Look at the headline: "Online News All About Text."

Well, duh. If I'm going to a news site, of course my eyes are going to look for text first.

I'd hesitate to read this article and use it as some sort of validation that all web users want text instead of graphics/images. Do you think the results would've been the same had they studied web users visiting photography sites? :)

[copongcopong]

Well that's what the internet is "mostly" for, ... information. =)

... it still depends on your target audience.

[tedster]

Yes, and pretty much that's what newspapers are for too - information. But eye movement studies on newspaper readers turn these numbers upside down.

[rewboss]

good mixtures of several sized headers, bold & italique text and HRs are a must in my opinion

I disagree. You seem to be saying that you should aim for variety in the way you format text.

To a certain extent, it may depend on the actual site. But generally speaking, an inconsistently formatted page can be horrible to read.

"Several-sized headers", if used wrongly, can totally destroy the structure of a page. Use <h1> for main headings, <h2> for subheadings, if necessary <h3> for less important divisions.

Bold and italics should be used only where necessary, i.e. when emphasis is needed. A page full of italics is hard to read on screen; bold text looks ugly and amateurish. Emphasis must be used sparingly, otherwise it loses emphasis. If you have emphasis all over the place, with a mixture of bold and italic (and bold italics, and how about a few <big>s too?), the reader can't decide which bits are actually supposed to be emphasised. The effect is a bit like having someone rant and rave at you in a loud voice -- imagine being harangued by a slightly deranged Bible-thumping fire-and-brimstone preacher while you're trying to do your shopping or read a book.

When you speak, you don't emphasize every word. You do -- if you're a public speaker -- vary the pitch, intonation and speed of your delivery to avoid boring everybody to tears. In print, you use punctuation to signify intonation and speed, and vary the length and complexity of your sentences.

Never use typographical effects for visual impact.

[ergophobe]

Never use typographical effects for visual impact.

Except, of course, in ransom notes....

Tom