Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Sanne Elling

dblp:86/3831 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 87% Wearable and physiological sensing · 13%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usability and user experience research › evaluation methodology
retrospective think-aloud
0.112011
Retrospective think-aloud method: using eye movements as an extra cue for participants' verbalizations · CHI 2011
Usability and user experience research › usability evaluation
usability evaluation methods
0.112011
Retrospective think-aloud method: using eye movements as an extra cue for participants' verbalizations · CHI 2011
Wearable and physiological sensing
eye tracking
0.012011
Retrospective think-aloud method: using eye movements as an extra cue for participants' verbalizations · CHI 2011

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

think-aloud protocol · 0.1eye tracking · 0.1comparative study · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 Retrospective think-aloud method: using eye movements as an extra cue for participants' verbalizations
abstract
The retrospective think-aloud method, in which participants work in silence and verbalize their thoughts afterwards while watching a recording of their performance, is often used for the evaluation of websites. However, participants may not always be able to recall what they thought, when they only see few visual cues that help them remembering their task execution process. In our study we complemented the recording of the performance with a gaze trail of the participant" eye movements, in order to elicit more verbalizations. A comparison was made between the traditional retrospective think-aloud protocols and the variant with eye movements. Contrary to our expectations, no differences were found between the two conditions on numbers of problems, the ways these problems were detected, and types of problems. Two possible explanations for this result are that eye movements might be rather confronting and distracting for participants, and the rather generic way of probing we used. The added value might be stronger when specific questions are asked, based on the observed eye movements. Implications for usability practitioners are discussed in the conclusions of this paper.
Sanne Elling, Leo Lentz, Menno D. T. de Jong
CHI1