tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34143703.post2953901957869455789..comments2007-04-25T12:40:54.555-07:00rafael mizrahinoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34143703.post-3463544426917193212007-04-25T12:40:00.000-07:002007-04-25T12:40:00.000-07:00Hi Christian, thanks for the feedback,<BR/>Your opinion creates quite a wide gap between "useful" and "not useful"<BR/>I'm sure that users (viewers;) may Find something "useful" in between.<BR/>anyway, you are right that the ViewFinder is better for images and advertisements, because the first short-term visual impact is much important, and in web pages, the readers employ much more visual search.feng-guihttp://www.feng-gui.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34143703.post-47929850318203563952007-04-25T12:12:00.000-07:002007-04-25T12:12:00.000-07:00While I'm sure your tool works for images, I don't believe it works for web pages.<BR/><BR/>It consistently appears to show that images get a lot of attention while content - i.e., text and links - get none.<BR/><BR/>That simply isn't true. We've done eye-tracking studies that in fact show quite the reverse - images get ignored and users focus on text, especially links, instead.<BR/><BR/>Your tool might be useful for advertisers - say, in determining where people will look on a large banner graphic. However, in my opinion it's of no use as far as the design of web pages is concerned.<BR/><BR/>Thoughts?Christian Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11642947831942173787noreply@blogger.com