<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Eyetracking: &#8220;I&#8217;m typical&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fivesketches.com/2009/05/eyetracking-im-typical/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fivesketches.com/2009/05/eyetracking-im-typical/</link>
	<description>Ideation, design, and usability for development teams</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 00:52:11 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: kath straub</title>
		<link>http://fivesketches.com/2009/05/eyetracking-im-typical/comment-page-1/#comment-80</link>
		<dc:creator>kath straub</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 01:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivesketches.com/?p=1504#comment-80</guid>
		<description>I am always somewhat baffled by the satisfied embrace of the F pattern that eyetracking uncovers for reading website copy ... Could it be that ... rather than &quot;This is what people do on web pages,&quot; we should walk away thinking &quot;Gee, this content must not be doing the work we thought&quot; ... ? 

Site visitors/readers give designers the benefit of the doubt. They invest in the first paragraph ... but for subsequent copy they are less generous. Where&#039;s the beef? What am I getting for all this reading? When the payoff is not there in the first few lines ... (Really, how engaging is YOUR company&#039;s copy?) ... they start skimming .. which manifests as reading the first handful of words of the first line or two in subsequent paragraphs. And the F pattern emerges from the blues and green heatmap mist.

It would be interesting to see a (public) comparison of the before &amp; after reading trace for content that had been improved both typographically and in terms of content (appropriate level,... with a gated-guided path, leading to clear actionable steps). My hunch is that the F would fade. What do you think?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am always somewhat baffled by the satisfied embrace of the F pattern that eyetracking uncovers for reading website copy &#8230; Could it be that &#8230; rather than &#8220;This is what people do on web pages,&#8221; we should walk away thinking &#8220;Gee, this content must not be doing the work we thought&#8221; &#8230; ? </p>
<p>Site visitors/readers give designers the benefit of the doubt. They invest in the first paragraph &#8230; but for subsequent copy they are less generous. Where&#8217;s the beef? What am I getting for all this reading? When the payoff is not there in the first few lines &#8230; (Really, how engaging is YOUR company&#8217;s copy?) &#8230; they start skimming .. which manifests as reading the first handful of words of the first line or two in subsequent paragraphs. And the F pattern emerges from the blues and green heatmap mist.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to see a (public) comparison of the before <span class="amp">&amp;</span> after reading trace for content that had been improved both typographically and in terms of content (appropriate level,&#8230; with a gated-guided path, leading to clear actionable steps). My hunch is that the F would fade. What do you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

