What are you looking for?: an eye-tracking study of information usage in web search

ABSTRACT

Web search services are among the most heavily used applications on the World Wide Web. Perhaps because search is used in such a huge variety of tasks and contexts, the user interface must strike a careful balance to meet all user needs. We describe a study that used eye tracking methodologies to explore the effects of changes in the presentation of search results. We found that adding information to the contextual snippet significantly improved performance for informational tasks but degraded performance for navigational tasks. We discuss possible reasons for this difference and the design implications for better presentation of search results.

References

1. Broder, A. A taxonomy of web search. SIGIR Forum, 36, 2(2002), 3--10.
2. Brumby, D.P. and Howes, A. Good enough but I'll just check: Web-page search as attentional refocusing. Proc. 6th Int'l Conference on Cognitive Modeling, Lawrence Erlbaum (2004), 46--50.
3. Card, S.K., Pirolli, P., Van Der Wege, M., Morrision, J.B., Reeder, R.W., Schraedley, P.K. and Boshart, J. Information scent as a driver of web behavior graphs: Results of a protocol analysis method for web usability. In Proc. CHI 2001, ACM Press (2001), 498--505.
4. Chi, E., Pirolli, P., Chen, K., & Pitkow, J. Using information scent to model user information needs and actions and the Web. In Proc. CHI 2001, ACM Press (2001), 490--497.
5. Cutrell, E., Dumais, S.T., & Teevan, J. Searching to eliminate personal information management. In Communications of the ACM (Special Issue: Personal information management), 49 1(2006), 58--64.
6. Cutrell, E., & Guan, Z. Eye tracking in MSN Search: Investigating snippet length, target position and task types. Microsoft Technical Report, MSR-TR-2007-01. ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2007-01.pdf. (2007).
7. Dumais, S.T., Cutrell, E. and Chen, H. Optimizing search by showing results in context. In Proc. CHI 2001, ACM Press (2001), 277--284.
8. Guan, Z., and Cutrell, E. An eye tracking study of the effect of target rank on Web search. In Proc. CHI 2007, ACM Press (2007).
9. Hornof, A.J., and Halverson, T. Cognitive strategies and eye movements for searching hierarchical computer displays. In Proc. CHI 2003, ACM Press (2003), 249--256.
10. Hotchkiss, G., Alston, S. and Edwards, G. Eye Tracking Study. http://www.enquiro.com/eyetrackingreport.asp.
11. Jansen, B.J. and Pooch, U. A Review of Web Searching Studies and a Framework for Future Research. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 52 (2000), 235--246.
12. Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., and Gay, G. Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. In Proc. SIGIR 2005, ACMPress (2005), 154--161.
13. Klöckner, K., Wirschum, N. and Jameson, A. Depth- and breadth-first processing of search result lists. In Ext. Abstracts CHI 2004, ACM Press (2004), 1539--1539.
14. Lau, T. and Horvitz, E. Patterns of search: analyzing and modeling web query refinement. Proc. Seventh Int'l Conference on User Modeling, Springer-Verlag (1999), 119--128.
15. Lee, U., Liu, Z., and Cho, Junghoo. Automatic identification of user goals in web search. In Proc. WWW 2005, (2005), 391--400.
16. Lin, J., Quan, D., Sinha, V., Bakshi, K., Huynh, D., Katz, B., and Karger, D.R. The role of context in question answering systems. In Ext. Abstracts CHI 2003, ACM Press (2003), 1006--1007.
17. Lorigo, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Granka, L., and Gay, G. The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google. Info. Processing and Management: an Int'l Journal. 42, 4 (2006), 1123--1131.
18. Mat-Hassan, M. and Levene, M. Associating search and navigation behavior through log analysis. J American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56 (2005), 913--934.
19. Pratt, W. and Fagan, L. The usefulness of dynamically categorizing search results. J American Medical Informatics Association, 7 6(2000), 605--617.
20. Rele, R.S. and Duchowski, A.T. Using eye tracking to evaluate alternate search results interfaces. In Proc. HFES,49th Annual Meeting (2005).
21. Rose, D.E. Reconciling information-seeking behavior with search user interfaces for the web. J American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57 (2006), 797--799.
22. Rose, D.E. and Levinson, D. Understanding user goals in Web search. In Proc. WWW 2004, (2004), 13--19.
23. Silverstein, C., Henzinger, M., Marais, H. and Moricz, M. Analysis of a very large AltaVista query log. SRC Technical note #1998-14. http://gatekeeper.dec.com/ pub/DEC/SRC/technical-notes/abstracts/src-tn-1998-014.html. (1998).
24. Teevan, J., Alvarado, C., Ackerman, M.S., and Karger, D.R. The perfect search engine is not enough: A study of orienteering behavior in directed search. In Proc. CHI 2004, ACM Press (2004), 415--422.
25. Yee, K.P., Swearingen, K., Li, K., and Hearst, M. Faceted metadata for image search and browsing. Proc. SIGCHI 2003, ACM Press (2003), 401--408.
26. Zhang, J. and Marchionini, G. Evaluation and evolution of a browse and search interface: relation browser++. In Proc. CHI 2005, ACM Press (2005), 179--188.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing