Design education often trains us to justify decisions conceptually or aesthetically. However, across my earlier work, a recurring question has emerged: How reliable is our intuition about where people look? We are holding on to principles that have been established, way before technological advancements took off. So how can we truly know how our eyes and brains experience our designs?
Eye-tracking offers a way to approach this question empirically. By recording gaze behaviors, specifically fixations, it becomes possible to reconstruct how viewers navigate visual material in real time (Scene Grammar Lab, 2023). This allows for a shift from speculative reasoning to evidence-based analysis of perception. Visual attention is not arbitrary, it is shaped by task, context, and prior knowledge (Eisma, Eijssen & de Winter, 2022). This suggests that design cannot be understood independently of its viewers. Or, put less diplomatically: a design without an audience is just a very confident arrangement of pixels.
Expertise and the Problem of “Seeing Differently”
Another key aspect I want to research further is the distinction between designers and non-designers as viewing groups. Existing research indicates that expertise significantly influences visual behaviour. Designers, due to training, tend to process layouts more strategically, while non-experts rely more on saliency and immediate visual cues (Lohmeyer et al., 2014). This in return raises an uncomfortable but necessary question for all design practice: Are we designing for ourselves, or for the people who will actually engage with the work? Because if these groups fundamentally see differently, then evaluating design solely within expert circles risks missing how it functions in real-world contexts. Giving that Personas and Target Groups are ofcourse researched, there is still a barrier we simply can not forsee and that is: the individuality of each person viewing a design. Circling back to the fact that we all live in constant progress. Meaning each age-, social- and targetgroup adapts differently to trends, animations or context. o build a structured research foundation, I will focus on eye-tracking in applied design contexts, particularly exhibitions and curated visual environments.
Planned approach:
- Conduct observational studies using eye-tracking technology
- Compare two primary groups:
- Designers (trained visual literacy)
- Non-designers (general audience)
- Analyse:
- Fixation duration
- Gaze paths
- Areas of interest (heatmaps)
The aim is to generate empirical data on how different audiences engage with design, rather than relying on assumptions or post-rationalised explanations. Alongside data collection, I will have weekly consultations with Professor Baumann to refine the research direction. At this stage, the topic is intentionally broad, perhaps too broad. The goal of these meetings is to iteratively narrow the focus into a clearly defined research question. Because right now, the working title could easily be: “Everything About Eye-Tracking, Everywhere, All at Once.”
Semester Plan & Why This Matters
To keep this project from dissolving into beautifully organised chaos, I am going to need a more narrow downed timetable. Since the beginning of the semester can turn slightly hectic, I will start my research a month after the start. So I propose the following structure:
Weeks 4–6: Methodological framework and technical setup (including inevitable calibration struggles)
Weeks 7–10: Data collection in exhibitions and design environments
Weeks 11–12: Data analysis (heatmaps, gaze plots, mild existential doubt)
Weeks 13–14: Synthesis and refinement of research focus
This project is ultimately about repositioning design as an evidence-informed practice. By integrating eye-tracking data, we can begin to understand not just what design communicates, but how it is actually perceived.
Because if design is a form of communication, then attention is its most fundamental currency.
Sources:
- Eisma, Y.B., Eijssen, D. & de Winter, J.C.F. (2022) What attracts the driver’s eye attention as a function of task and environment. Information (Switzerland), 13(7).
- Lohmeyer, Q., Matthiesen, S. & Meboldt, M. (2014) Task-dependent visual behaviour of engineering designers – an eye-tracking experiment. DESIGN Conference.
- Rodemer, M. et al. (2022) Dynamic signals in instructional videos support students to navigate through complex representations. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
- Scene Grammar Lab (2023) Eye-tracking research overview.
- Spinks, J. & Mortimer, D. (2016) Lost in the crowd? Using eye-tracking to investigate information processing in choice experiments. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
