Eye-Tracking Reveals the Personal Styles for Search Result Evaluation

  • Anne Aula
  • Päivi Majaranta
  • Kari-Jouko Räihä
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3585)


We used eye-tracking to study 28 users when they evaluated result lists produced by web search engines. Based on their different evaluation styles, the users were divided into economic and exhaustive evaluators. Economic evaluators made their decision about the next action (e.g., query re-formulation, following a link) faster and based on less information than exhaustive evaluators. The economic evaluation style was especially beneficial when most of the results in the result page were relevant. In these tasks, the task times were significantly shorter for economic than for exhaustive evaluators. The results suggested that economic evaluators were more experienced with computers than exhaustive evaluators. Thus, the result evaluation style seems to evolve towards a more economic style as the users gain more experience.


Search Task Fixation Duration Personal Style Result Page Result List 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Aaltonen, A., Hyrskykari, A., Räihä, K.-J.: 101 spots, or how do users read menus? In: Proc. CHI 1998, pp. 132–139. ACM Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Byrne, M.D., Anderson, J.R., Douglass, S., Matessa, M.: Eye tracking the visual search of click-down menus. In: Proc. CHI 1999, pp. 402–409. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellis, S., Cadera, R., Misner, J., Craig, C.S., Lankford, C.P.: Windows to the soul? What eye movements tell us about software usability. In: Proc. 7th Annual Conf. Usability, Professionals Association, Washington D.C (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldberg, J.H., Stimson, M.J., Lewenstein, M., Scott, N., Wichansky, A.M.: Eye tracking in web search tasks: Design implications. In: Proc. ETRA 2002, pp. 51–58. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Granka, L., Joachims, T., Gay, vcG.: Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search. In: Proc. SIGIR 2004, pp. 478–479. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hornof, A.J., Halverson, T.: Cognitive strategies and eye movements for searching hierarchical computer displays. In: Proc. CHI 2003, pp. 249–256. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klöckner, K., Wirschum, N., Jameson, A.: Depth- and breadth-first processing of search result lists. In: Proc. CHI 2004, p. 1539. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Räihä, K.-J., Aula, A., Majaranta, P., Rantala, H., Koivunen, K.: Static visualization of temporal eye-tracking data. In: Costabile, M.F., Paternó, F. (eds.) INTERACT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3585, pp. 946–949. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salojärvi, J., Kojo, I., Jaana, S., Kaski, S.: Can relevance be inferred from eye movements in information retrieval? In: Proc. WSOM 2003, pp. 261–266 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Aula
    • 1
  • Päivi Majaranta
    • 1
  • Kari-Jouko Räihä
    • 1
  1. 1.Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction (TAUCHI), Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of TampereFinland

Personalised recommendations