Understanding eye movements on mobile devices for better presentation of search results

Kim, Jae-Won; Thomas, Paul; Sankaranarayana, Ramesh; Gedeon, Tom; Yoon, Hwan‐Jin

doi:10.1002/asi.23628

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, different from desktops fixed in the office or at home, the mobile terminals are used in complex scenarios, and many factors, such as brightness, noise, and weather, may compete for users’ attention [ 21 ]. In fact, the differences in hardware and interactive modes did lead to the differences between desktop and mobile terminal in cognitive load [ 24 ], search performance [ 25 ] and decision-making behavior [ 26 , 27 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

User Experience of the Mobile Terminal Customization System: The Influence of Interface Design and Educational Background on Personalized Customization

Wang

Tian

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study verified the role that different interface designs and users’ educational backgrounds play in the task performance and subjective evaluation of mobile terminal customization system. Interface type (based on scroll, alternative, and attribute) and user group (college students and industrial workers) were employed as the variables. A total of 72 users were included in the study, and an analysis of 3 × 2 between-participants design indicated that (1) Different interface designs of customization systems had a significant difference in task performance, the alternative based interface had the best results in the task performance, and there was no significant difference between the attribute-based and scroll-based interfaces in task performance; (2) The matching between educational background and interface type will affect the users’ evaluation on system usability. Industrial workers thought that the scroll-based and alternative-based interfaces were more useable, while college students preferred attribute-based interface design; (3) Different interfaces had a significant difference in user task load. The scroll-based interface had the lowest mental demand on the users, while alternative-based had the lowest physical demand on the users, though it consumed more effort; (4) Different educational backgrounds had a significant difference in user task load. Industrial workers showed lower effort in the scroll-based and alternative-based interfaces, while college students had lower effort in the attribution-based interface; (5) A correlation analysis showed that there was a significant negative correlation between the system usability score and the effort in task load. This study results have a positive significance for interface design. With educational background and layout as two important factors in our interface design, we may obtain the most appropriate design principles for enhancing the online customization experiences of different groups of consumers. The more important is that this study is based on the actual needs of the industry. For the first time, we take suitcase as an online customized product, which may not only help local manufacturers to extend their traditional offline distribution channels to online, but also provide a constructive thinking concerning interface design for customization of a single product.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

User Experience of the Mobile Terminal Customization System: The Influence of Interface Design and Educational Background on Personalized Customization

Wang

Tian

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This result is not surprising, since on the smartphone only ads were visible without scrolling down. The higher visual attention on top results of small screens has already been shown by Kim et al (2016). This shows how important it is for results to be placed in positions "above the fold", that is, results that can be seen without scrolling down.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…The second research question relates to differences between desktop and mobile user behavior. We expect a more significant effect of ads on the smaller mobile screen, as only ads are visible "above the fold", that is, without scrolling down (e.g., Kim, Thomas, Sankaranarayana, Gedeon, & Yoon, 2016;Sachse, 2019). We test the following hypotheses:…”

Section: Research Questions and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second research question relates to differences between desktop and mobile user behavior. We expect a more significant effect of ads on the smaller mobile screen, as only ads are visible “above the fold”, that is, without scrolling down (e.g., Kim, Thomas, Sankaranarayana, Gedeon, & Yoon, 2016; Sachse, 2019). We test the following hypotheses:

H3a: Users pay more visual attention to an ad when it is displayed on a mobile device than when it is displayed on desktop computers.H3b: Users click an ad more often when it is displayed on a mobile device than when it is displayed on desktop computers.…”

Section: Research Questions and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How users' knowledge of advertisements influences their viewing and selection behavior in search engines

Schultheiß

Lewandowski

2020

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to recent studies, search engine users have little knowledge of Google's business model. In addition, users cannot sufficiently distinguish organic results from advertisements, resulting in result selections under false assumptions. Following on from that, this study examines how users' understanding of search-based advertising influences their viewing and selection behavior on desktop computer and smartphone. To investigate this, we used a mixed methods approach (n = 100) consisting of a pre-study interview, an eyetracking experiment, and a post-study questionnaire. We show that participants with a low level of knowledge on search advertising are more likely to click on ads than subjects with a high level of knowledge. Moreover, subjects with little knowledge show less willingness to scroll down to organic results. Regarding the device, there are significant differences in viewing behavior. These can be attributed to the influence of the direct visibility of search results on both devices tested: Ads that were ranked on top received significantly more visual attention on the small screen than the top ranked ads on the large screen. The results call for a clearer labeling of advertisements and for the promotion of users' information literacy. Future studies should investigate the motivations of searchers when clicking on ads. Search engines like Google predominantly make money through search-based advertising, that is, advertisements shown in response to users' queries. These "sponsored results" are usually shown on the search engine results pages (SERPs) at the top and before the not paid for, so-called organic results. The question arises in how far users are aware of this distinction between paid-for and not paid-for results, and whether this knowledge influences their choice of results on the SERPs. Distinguishing between organic results and advertisements has probably become more difficult over the years, as the snippets on the SERPs for these two result types look very similar (cf. Lewandowski, Kerkmann, Rümmele, & Sünkler, 2018). In addition, search engines seem to further blur the lines between organic results and advertisements through changes in labeling. 1 As Ginny Marvin writing in industry newsletter Search Engine Land put it, "text ads have never looked more native." (Search Engine Land, 28.5.2019). Prior research had found that the information literacy of search engine users is rather low, for example, when it comes to formulating precise questions (Stark, Magin, & Jürgens, 2014) or solving complex tasks (Singer, Norbisrath, & Lewandowski, 2012). This low level of information literacy was also observed regarding advertisements. Users are hardly able to distinguish between ads and organic results on search

show abstract

“…The eye gaze patterns, an indicator of user attention and cognitive processes have been extensively studied for designing user interfaces, such as the functional grouping of interface menu [33,34], faceted search interface [35,36] and comparison of interface layouts [37]. Information retrieval researchers have been concerned with users' attention to the ranking position of documents and different components of search engine results page (SERP) [38,39,40,41,42]. These studies generally suggest that there is no significant difference in users' eye gaze patterns on comparisons of search interface layouts, and users' attention to elements of interfaces depends on the length and quality of snippets on SERPs, as well as the displayed position of search results.…”

Section: Information Seeking As Foragingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk and Ambiguity in Information Seeking: Eye Gaze Patterns Reveal Contextual Behavior in Dealing with Uncertainty

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Information foraging connects optimal foraging theory in ecology with how humans search for information. The theory suggests that, following an information scent, the information seeker must optimize the tradeoff between exploration by repeated steps in the search space vs. exploitation, using the resources encountered. We conjecture that this tradeoff characterizes how a user deals with uncertainty and its two aspects, risk and ambiguity in economic theory. Risk is related to the perceived quality of the actually visited patch of information, and can be reduced by exploiting and understanding the patch to a better extent. Ambiguity, on the other hand, is the opportunity cost of having higher quality patches elsewhere in the search space. The aforementioned tradeoff depends on many attributes, including traits of the user: at the two extreme ends of the spectrum, analytic and wholistic searchers employ entirely different strategies. The former type focuses on exploitation first, interspersed with bouts of exploration, whereas the latter type prefers to explore the search space first and consume later. Our findings from an eye-tracking study of experts' interactions with novel search interfaces in the biomedical domain suggest that user traits of cognitive styles and perceived search task difficulty are significantly correlated with eye gaze and search behavior. We also demonstrate that perceived risk shifts the balance between exploration and exploitation in either type of users, tilting it against vs. in favor of ambiguity minimization. Since the pattern of behavior in information foraging is quintessentially sequential, risk and ambiguity minimization cannot happen simultaneously, leading to a fundamental limit on how good such a tradeoff can be. This in turn connects information seeking with the emergent field of quantum decision theory.

show abstract

Understanding eye movements on mobile devices for better presentation of search results

Cited by 24 publications

References 27 publications

User Experience of the Mobile Terminal Customization System: The Influence of Interface Design and Educational Background on Personalized Customization

User Experience of the Mobile Terminal Customization System: The Influence of Interface Design and Educational Background on Personalized Customization

How users' knowledge of advertisements influences their viewing and selection behavior in search engines

Risk and Ambiguity in Information Seeking: Eye Gaze Patterns Reveal Contextual Behavior in Dealing with Uncertainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About