banner-blindness in on-line advertising
TRANSCRIPT
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
!Banner-blindness in on-line advertising!
!!
Darran Mottershead!
!!
Manchester Metropolitan University!
School of Computing, Mathematics & Digital Technology!
BSc (Hons) Computing!
!!
Project Supervisor: Yanlong Zhang!
!!
April 2014
No part of this project has been submitted in support of an !
application for any other degree or qualification at this or !
any other institute of learning. Apart from those parts of !
the project containing citations to the work of others, this !
project is my own unaided work.!
!
Signed __________________________________
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Abstract!Banner-blindness is a phenomenon where advertisements (banner styled amongst others) are deemed ineffective, and in some cases are completely ignored by internet users. This has spiked an increase of studies, attempting to find a solution for the issue plaguing online advertisements. Existing methods for the investigation of banner-blindness, focus on the capturing of subjects performing website based searches, using measurable criteria. Post study methods rely on the subjects ability to recall or recognise advertisements they have been exposed to prior, to determine the effectiveness of said advertisements. In this project, the eye-tracking method to capture subjects actions, and post-study questionnaires, were used to provide resulting evidence of banner-blindness, for modern websites using varying criteria. This provided an in-depth evaluation, of how different elements of advertisements tend to contribute to their effectiveness (or lack of). Results conclusively show that a solution has yet to be found to completely eradicate the banner-blindness phenomenon, plaguing the online advertisements of websites. Advertisement location and proximity in relation to other webpage elements, greatly impacts the recall and recognition rates of banner advertisements. Effective measures discussed in the report, include the relevance advertisements have in accordance to webpage content, in addition to which elements should be included in an advertisement to increase its effectiveness.!
!
�1
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Acknowledgements!I would like to thank the following people for their help with various aspects in this report.!
Yanlong Zhang, project supervisor, who's continued support and guidance helped to structure the report.!
Paul Aldcroft & Sandra Fletcher, MMU Technicians, for their assistance in the Usability Room, setting up and monitoring the eye-tracking software for the project.!
Oliver Hemsted, fellow student, who assisted in the first testings and piloting of the initial study plan, to be used by future study subjects for the project.!
All study subjects for their contribution; time and effort, in the voluntary completion of the Banner-blindness study.
�2
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Table of ContentsAbstract! 1!
Acknowledgements! 2!
Table of Contents! 3!
List of Figures! 7!
List of Tables! 7!
1.0 Introduction! 8!
1.1 Project Background! 8!
1.1.1 The Future of Advertisements! 9!
1.1.2 ‘Banner-blindness’ Origination! 9!
1.2 Aims! 10!
1.3 Objectives! 10!
1.4 Organisation of Report! 11!
2.0 Literature Review! 12!
2.1 Goal Orientation and Banner Placement! 13!
2.1.1 Summary! 17!
2.2 Animation! 18!
2.2.1 Summary! 21!
2.3 Advertisement Frequency & Product Knowledge! 22!
2.3.1 Summary! 24!
2.4 Visual Hierarchy and SERPs! 25!
2.4.1 Summary! 27!
3.0 Design! 28!
3.1 Methodology! 28!
3.1.1 Website Searching (Varying Criteria)! 28!
3.1.2 Advertisement Exposure! 29!
3.1.3 Post Recall and Recognition Evaluations! 30!
�3
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.2 Method Chosen! 31!
3.2.1 Section One of Method Chosen! 32!
Specific Websites (1.0)! 32!
SERP Websites (Section 1.1)! 33!
Website Screenshots (Section 1.2)! 34!
3.2.1 Section Two of Method Chosen! 35!
Post Recall and Recognition Questionnaire (Section 2.0)! 35!
3.3 The Usability Lab! 36!
3.3.1 Facilities and Functionality of the Usability Lab! 36!
3.3.2 Observation Lounge and Subject Study Area! 37!
3.3.3 Observation Suite! 37!
3.3.4 Using the Usability Lab (The Study)! 38!
Section 1.0 of the Study! 39!
Section 1.1 of the Study! 40!
Section 1.2 of the Study! 41!
Section 2.0 of the Study! 42!
3.4 Method Pilot! 43!
3.4.1 Background Testing! 43!
3.4.2 Pilot Results! 43!
3.4.3 Summary of Pilot! 44!
4.0 Result Discussion! 45!
4.1 Specific Websites Results! 45!
4.2 SERP Websites Results! 49!
4.3 Website Screenshots Results! 54!
4.2 Post Recall and Recognition Questionnaire Results! 56!
4.3 Summary of Results! 59!
4.3.1 Advertisement Position on Website! 59!
4.3.2 Advertisement Proximity! 61!
�4
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.3.3 Advertisement Coloration! 62!
4.3.4 Goal Orientation of Subjects! 63!
4.3.5 Questionnaire Reliability! 64!
5.0 Evaluation and Discussions! 66!
5.1 Achievements! 66!
5.1.1 Research Findings! 67!
5.1.2 Design and Product! 68!
5.1.3 Time Management! 69!
5.2 Improvements! 70!
5.2.1 Design Methodology! 70!
5.2.2 More Empirical Studies! 72!
6.0 Conclusion! 73!
6.1 Concluding Remarks! 73!
6.2 Future Work! 74!
References! 75!
Appendices! 78!
Appendix A - Terms of Reference! 79!
Banner-blindness in on-line Advertising! 79! Project Background! 79!
What is the Project! 79!
Importance of the Project! 79!
Aim! 80!
Objectives! 80!
Resources! 80!
Timetable and Deliverables! 81!
Start of Project! 81!
Key References (Harvard Format)! 82! �5
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Appendix B - Ethics Check Form! 83!
Ethics Check Form! 83! Appendix C - Interim Report! 87!
Interim Report! 87! Introduction (Aims and Objectives)! 87!
Achievements (Towards Aims and Objectives)! 88!
Issues and Challenges! 89!
Timetable (Remainder of Project)! 89!
Appendix D - Project Study (Final Design)! 90!
Task Briefing! 90! The purpose of the study! 90!
The Briefing! 90!
Required Tasks! 91! Section 1 - Listed Websites! 91!
Section 2 - Search! 91!
Section 3 - Static Images! 91!
Banner-blindness in on-line advertising! 92! Statement of Consent! 92!
The purpose of the study! 92!
The Procedure! 92!
Statement of Confidentiality! 92!
Contact for further information! 92!
Questions! 94!
Image Questions! 94!
General Questions! 94
�6
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
List of Figures!Fig. 1 • Goal Orientation Results • Page 13!
Fig. 2 • Mean Recognition Scores • Page 15!
Fig. 3 • Mean Recall Scores • Page 15!
Fig. 4 • Goal Orientation Results • Page 16!
Fig. 5 • Advertisement Demand on Subjects • Page 20!
Fig. 6 • Search Times • Page 20!
Fig. 7 • Exposure Frequency Results • Page 22!
Fig. 8 • Product Knowledge Results • Page 22!
Fig. 9 • Effect of Exposure Frequency • Page 23!
Fig. 10 • Effect of Product Knowledge • Page 23!
Fig. 11 • Scan Paths for SERPs • Page 25!
Fig. 12 • Fixation Count • Page 26!
Fig. 13 • Fixation Duration • Page 26!
Fig. 14 / 15 • Observation Lounge • Page 37!
Fig. 16 / 17 • Observation Suite • Page 37!
Fig. 18 • Pilot Results • Page 43!
Fig. 19 / 20 • Questionnaire Advertisements Remembered • Page 56!
List of Tables!Table. 1 • Specific Website Advertisement Results • Page 45!
Table. 2 • Website Screenshot Results • Page 54!
Table. 3 • Website Screenshot Advertisements Seen • Page 55!
Table. 4 • Questionnaire Advertisements Seen & Recalled • Page 57 �7
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
1.0 Introduction!
1.1 Project Background!The internet is a huge medium for individuals, small businesses, and huge organisations alike, with a vast array of networking interactions and ease of communication, the adoption rate of the internet is great.!
Companies who wish to stay competitive will adopt new trends, and therefore expend time, effort and money promoting their online presence. Companies continue to diversify their advertising styles. The ‘old’ billboards and newspaper advertisements still remain, however it is now likely they will have a website, and have a presence on social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Google+). !
Advertisements of a companies products or services can be seen almost anywhere, including Google searches (‘Ads related to your search’, found above any other search results). Social networks also take advantage of using ‘Promoted’ tweets (Twitter) or ‘Sponsored’ posts (Facebook), to generate revenue. Advertisements redirect users to webpages tailored to the users interests, showing products/services that the user would likely find appealing, therefore increasing the possibility of a purchase.!
In relation to banner styled advertisements, their main purpose is to invoke a direct click from a user, to present information the advertisement is attempting to convey. A more immediate response from a user, shows the effectiveness of an advertisement, and would boost brand awareness. A CTR or Click-Through Rate [11] , measures the number of direct clicks from users, which helps to determine which advertisements are more ‘popular’ or effective amongst consumers, who visit a particular website or service.!
The solution to increase the effectiveness of banner styled advertisements, and to conquer the phenomenon of banner-blindness, [1] is to clearly increase the CTR, by altering how advertisements appear and interact with the user.
�8
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
1.1.1 The Future of Advertisements!It is well known that the mobile platform is the future or media consumption, with the ever increasing sales trends of smartphones and tablet devices [13]. Mobile usage is also expected to overtake desktop usage, and will be the norm for media consumption. Mobile dominance over the desktop has already been seen in the UK [14].!
The adoption rate of the internet as an advertising medium is huge, and internet / social services and widely being accessed on the mobile platform [12].!
“The significant growth rate of mobile advertising has continued into 2013, reflecting the
profound shift in how consumers are viewing media.”
Silverman, David. (Partner, PwC)!
To allow for some perspective on the state of mobile advertising, there was an increase of 145% in HY 2013. The mobile advertising totalled $3 billion in the United States HY 2013, compared to $1.2 HY 2012 [12].!
1.1.2 ‘Banner-blindness’ Origination!‘Banner-blindness’ is a term that was coined by Benway in 1998, to which his series of usability studies are highly regarded in this area. Benway and Lane concluded that graphical banners were ineffective, and are ignored by the vast majority of internet users. One of Benway’s most prominent studies ‘Banner blindness: What searching users notice and do not notice on the World Wide Web’ tested whether users could find a specific piece of information within a webpage. The information in question would be located within a banner-styled advertisement and greatly noticeable, however this tended to be ignored.!
Graphical banners which by nature tend to be large, brightly coloured, highly-animated and sometimes image-heavy, are ineffective.
�9
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
1.2 Aims!I am to achieve a solid understanding of why users tend to ignore banner advertisements, which element(s) of banner advertisements are the least effective i.e. animation / colour, and which are most associated with banner advertisements. !
By reviewing existing literature on past banner-blindness investigations and methods, I will design a method to investigate the effects banner advertisements have on users, within current, modern websites.!
I will provide a solution to how banner-blindness can be overcome or reduced by removing / replacing certain banner element(s), that users ignore based on concrete method results. Failing to provide a solution due to varying or inconclusive results, valid suggestions to increase recall and recognition rates, in addition to Click-Through Rates will be provided.!
1.3 Objectives!• The background to the current phenomenon ‘Banner-blindness’ will be clearly stated.!
• Existing literature will be investigated and evaluated.!
• Common themes will be established, and compared with other themes.!
• Based on results from common themes, the methods of study will be examined.!
• I will develop my own method and study plan to evaluate Banner-blindness.!
• Evaluation of my method design will be compared with existing methods.!
• The method I design will be tested and implemented.!
• Results from my method will be evaluated, and discussed!
• The method will be repeated numerous times, whereby themes will emerge.
�10
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
1.4 Organisation of Report!Introduction: Chapter 1 details the background surrounding the topic ‘Banner-blindness’, including the origination of the term, and why the phenomenon has great importance in the modern world. The aims of what I wish to achieve from this project will be clearly stated, the objectives to help me complete these aims will be realistic and achievable. The origination of the term ‘Banner-blindness will be explained, as will the future of advertisements on different medium platforms.!
Literature Review: Chapter 2 is a review of current and past literature concerning the background to the area of investigation, a critique and comparison of literature will be performed. The chapter is separated by common themes, underpinning the reasoning as to why banner-blindness occurs. Each theme is clearly stated, which consists of multiple sets of data results and methodology from different reviews. The individual themes will be concluded, discussing the main issues presented, and any solutions that were offered, in addition to my personal opinion of disapproval or agreement concerning the outcome.!
Design: Chapter 3 will consist of the method designed to help identify the element(s) which enhance banner-blindness, based on methods previously conducted, and contradicted or proved from Chapter 2. The design of the method will be justified in it use, and compared with other alternative methods. The design will be piloted (tested) for final candidate usage, and explained in detail as to how it will assist with the aims established in Chapter 1.!
Implementation: Chapter 4 will implement the design aforementioned in Chapter 3, process the data and clearly state the results in various chart forms. The implemented design will be repeated multiple times, whereby averages can be determined and the reliability of data can be proven.!
Conclusion: Chapter 5 provides suggestions to outline further studies that may be carried out at a later date, to further solidify results from this study, or to provide results on banner-blindness aspects not covered in this study, as advertisements evolve. The conclusive results from Chapter 4 will be discussed, in addition to the opinions relating to literature from Chapter 2. A finalised conclusive statement will be formed, and a solution to banner-blindness provided (if possible).!
!�11
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
2.0 Literature Review!Initial key-word searches such as ‘banner-blindness’ and ‘advertisement blindness’ found that the research of Benway and Lane, was the first recognised work that had any significance. It was indeed Benway that coined the term ‘banner blindness’, his doctoral thesis (1999) titled ‘Banner blindness: What searching users notice and do not notice on the World Wide Web’ [15], provides great benefits and contrast in relation to research conducted after this date.!
Benway’s work states that banners located higher up a webpage, separate from other navigation style links, tend to be ignored, even though web designers place the banners here intentionally, to attract the users.!
The term which Benway coined as ‘banner blindness’ also occurred with graphical banners that resembled advertisements, as well as plain banners, and large-text banners, which did not resemble advertisements. Benway also states that graphical banners made no change in user recognition, and positioning the banners closer to the menu bar of a webpage only increased user recognition slightly.!
A study by Wong [8] directly references Bayles [2], later discussed in 2.2 Animation, however to provide further background results for banner-blindness in this particular scenario, banner advertisement elements most remembered by subjects are as follows:!
Graphics (13%)Interactivity (14%)Content (13%)Animation (13%)Colour (13%)Music (9%)Video (6%)Font or Typography (6%)Curiosity (5%)Branding (4%)Position of Advertisement (1%)!
!
�12
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
2.1 Goal Orientation and Banner Placement!A study by Heinz, Hug, Nugaeva and Opwis [1] concerning whether banner-blindness can be effected by the goal orientation of the user was found to be significant. A user who visits a webpage with no direct intention of what they wish to view (explorative), are more likely to recognise and recall banner advertisements, than those who immediately know what they are searching for (narrow or broad).!
To provide some context for the goal orientation study, the explanation for each orientation is described below:!
‘In the narrow goal orientation, participants had to find an answer about a specific question. In the broad goal orientation, participants were asked to prepare themselves about a topic for a coffee break talk. The exploration did not contain specific instructions’.!
Results from this particular study, indicate that explorative goal orientation is associated with higher levels of recall and recognition rates for banner advertisements.!
Explorative subjects recalled two banner advertisements 25% more often than Broad orientated subjects, and almost 50% more often than Narrow orientated subjects.
�13
Observed Frequencies for Original Recognition Scores!
0 = no banners were recognised.!1 = one banner was recognised.!2 = two banners were recognised.
Fig. 1
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Pagendarm and Schaumburg [17] also considered the effects of user browsing intentions, from aimless browsing (ALB) to goal directed search for information (GDSI). Their hypothesis: aimless browsers would recall advertisements more often than goal-orientated users.!
The study in relation to the subject browsing intentions, were to browse the website according to the subjects personal interests (ALB), or to find the answers to a number of questions from a list (GDSI), designed so the answers could be found from the website.!
After a 15 minute browsing session, followed by a 7 minute break, subjects completed a recall and recognition test. The recall section concerned three areas, to list:!
• Advertised companies, products or services.!
• Advertising copies and slogans.!
• Pictorial motives and basic colours.!
The recognition section allowed the subjects to view the banner advertisements that were shown throughout the website study. Subjects had to rate (0 to 4) on how confident they were that they had seen the banner advertisement in the study, 0 being unsure, 4 being very sure.!
Results greatly matched the hypothesis of Pagendarm and Schaumburg, as for all three areas in the first section of the study, recall rates were higher for ALB subjects than for GDSI subjects.!
The study finalises on the discussion that when users are searching for specific information, by using a search engine such as Google, advertisements are most likely to be ignored. Also if information that the user generally intends to find, is not usually contained in banner advertisements or where banner advertisements are usually placed, the user may tend to ignore this area of the screen in future internet usage sessions.!
!
�14
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
The resulting tables and charts from this study are shown below. In addition to the recall results, recognition scores favoured ALB subjects over the GDSI subjects in every banner advertisement rating. !
In some cases ALB subjects more than doubled the recognition rates for some banners, over GDSI subjects, this is solid evidence in favour of ALB, as banner scores are consistent throughout.!
!!
!!!!The Recall table displays similar results, as for all four aspects of the study, ALB browsers scored higher than GDSI. Recognising banner advertisements more than doubled for ALB subjects, solidifying the theory that aimless browsing improves the recall and recognition rates for advertisements.
�15
Mean Recognition Scores
Mean Recall Scores (SDs)
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
A study by Heinz and Mekler, [3] suggests that over the years, users have independently formed expectations of where they expect different elements of a website to appear. This study claims that users expect banner advertisements to be located at the top of a webpage. Further studies by Burke, Hornof, Nilsen, and Gorman, [7] also placed banner advertisements at the top of the screen to ‘mimic a common position of banner ads on the Web’. Multiple sources are in agreement that the general banner advertisement layouts are becoming stale, and predictable. It would therefore be anticipated that banner advertisements placed at the bottom of the screen, or another alternative, would produce higher recall and recognition rates.!
Similar to the previous goal orientated study [1], subjects who were performing ‘aimless browsing’ as opposed to ‘goal-orientated’ browsing, tended to recognise and recall banner advertisements more often.!
In the study [3], it was successfully confirmed that the navigation style (goal-orientated / aimless browsing) influences the recall and recognition rates of banner advertisements, the influence of banner placement could not be confirmed. Subjects who were more goal-orientated were too focused by the task as hand, to recall banner advertisements that had no relevance to their desired (narrow) search criteria.!
The Mean (average) rating for aimless browsing subjects for banner advertisement recognition, was higher than goal-orientated browsing subjects by a small margin, which does not leave much room for error. However recall rates were near five-times higher for aimless browsers, than for goal-orientated browsers, which is a significant and clear result. There is also no significant difference between banner placement (top / bottom) for either recognition or recall.
�16
Fig. 4
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
2.1.1 Summary!Personally I feel a user who has a distinct knowledge of what they are searching for (narrow), will immediately search for that specific item rather than being prepared to take a moment to familiarise themselves with a webpage. If a user were to be more open-minded (more explorative), they would be less inclined to skip through sections of a website they know have no relevance to their topic whatsoever, because they have no topic in which they are searching for.!
It is difficult to provide a counter argument to disprove the results from four independent studies [1, 3, 7, 17], especially as the results are remarkably consistent, in their evidence that users tend to recognise and recall advertisements more often whilst aimlessly browsing than browsing with a specific intention.!
Figures one to four are all in favour of aimless browsers, recalling and recognising banner advertisements more often than goal-orientated browsers. The effectiveness of banner placement however has not been proven, as scores relating to top and bottom banner placement, were remarkably similar. !
In conclusion I agree with the consensus that the goal orientation of a user, can be a deciding factor as to whether advertisements are effective in their nature, to attract the attention of a user, and invoke a direct click or response. Also banner placement does not seem to have any noticeable effect, as aimless browsers would tend to look at the majority of the screen regardless.!
!
�17
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
2.2 Animation!Many advertisements are now animated either in parts, flash banners where there may be static text but a moving image, or vice versa. Completely animated advertisements can also be found such as advertisements generally found on YouTube. The entire advertisement can be considered a small movie clip, much like an advertisement that would be shown on television.!
It is a possibility advertisements are adopting this method rather than remaining static, as users generally ignore rectangular ad-like elements, and users are used to being exposed to television advertisements.!
Bayles [2] hypothesised that animation would increase recall and recognition of advertisements by increasing user awareness (making the advertisement more prominent / noticeable), however this relationship could not be established. Animation did not appear to increase recall and recognition rates of advertisements.!
Bayles attempted to further understand the effects of animation in advertisements, whereby subjects completed four information search tasks on a single webpage, this study exposed users to banner advertisements multiple times. Subjects did not know they would have to recall these advertisements at a later time. !
Subjects had a number of tasks to complete including recreating the visited webpage, based on a blank template of headings and placeholders. !
The more significant section of the study: the recognition task, where subjects had to decide which advertisements they had been exposed to, appears to provide concrete results.!
A webpage containing twelve banners, six advertisements in both static and animated state were shown. Two advertisements were the advertisements subjects were exposed to during the study, the others ten were ‘distracter advertisements’, that were similar to the advertisements shown, but had not been present in the study.!
!
�18
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Results from the study indicated 40% of subjects could recall at least one advertisement, whether it was animated or not, therefore less than half of the subjects remembered viewing the advertisements. In addition to the underwhelming recall rates, results indicated 38% of subjects were able to recognise animated advertisements as animated, and a lower 30% recognised static advertisements as static.!
The study found conclusively found that animation had been unsuccessful in this
particular case:
‘Despite the recommended usage of animation, this study did not find animation to enhance
awareness of online banner advertisements. It appeared that participants recalled and
recognised movement on the Web page but did not necessarily associate it to the
advertisements.’
Further studies by Burke, Hornof, Nilsen and Gorman [7] confirm that users rarely look at advertisements, independent of whether they are static or animated, and that animated banner advertisements are more difficult to recall.!
Their most significant experiment, subjects searched for short words whilst two banner advertisements appeared within the search. The different banner advertisements included animated, and static versions of the same banner, flashing big text banners and invisible banners. Subjects ranked their impressions of experienced workload for each banner advertisement.!
The hypothesis for this study: search times would be greater for flashing big text banners as their text was similar to the search target. Predictions also included animated versions of banner advertisements would increase search times more than the static variation. [7]!
The hypothesis and prediction for animated banner advertisements and flashing big text banners to distract the subject, and perceive a higher workload, is a sensible assumption to have made.!
The general ideology surrounding this particular study concerning workload, is that a higher workload whilst exposure to a particular banner advertisement style is present, indicates a greater effectiveness of the advertisement, as searching for the desired task by the subject took longer (the advertisement became distracting, and therefore secured the attention of the subject).
�19
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
The bar chart diagram below depicts the workload factors for each of the four banner advertisement styles. A greater bar height indicates a greater perceived workload for subjects, however performance is inverted.!
The hypothesised theory that flashing big text advertisements would hinder the subjects the search capabilities the most, has been proven in this instance. The animated variations of banner advertisements in comparison to their static counterparts, fluctuated slightly more (Frustration), and were otherwise quite similar throughout.!
The table below depicting the Mean search time for each banner type, also has ‘surprising’ results, that were not predicted in this study. The average search time for subjects favoured the animated variations of the banner advertisements, as opposed to their static counterparts. This both went against the suggested hypothesis, and the bar chart above (Fig. 5), as although deviations were only small, workload appeared heavier for animated advertisements.!
The end results for this particular study, were that ‘people do not look at animated banners more often than static ones, and they can search equally quickly under both conditions’. It was seen that the flashing cyan banners increase frustration and perceived mental demand, however these would not be beneficial for advertisement purposes.!
‘Web designers and site owners should post ads closely related to page content if they hope to
attract their viewers’ attention. Participants in the present studies had an overriding incentive
not to look at banners, and no amount of banner manipulation increased their pull. Longer
exposure time, animation, and the presence of images did not make the task- irrelevant ads
more conspicuous.’ [7]
!
!�20
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
2.2.1 Summary!Conclusive results from multiple study sources [2, 7] prove that in these particular scenarios, animated advertisements or advertisements that contain animation, do not effectively increase recall or recognition rates for the advertised products / services. In one study [7] static advertisements actually caught the attention of subjects more often than animated advertisements, suggesting that animated plays no or very little part in the successfulness of banner advertisements whatsoever.!
The overwhelming results from both studies suggest that ‘animation did not enhance awareness of online banner advertisements’, [2] and that people are not attracted to animated advertisements more than static advertisements [7].!
It is a valid conclusion to present that animation is a factor that does not positively increase the Click-Through Rate of advertisements, and in some cases can be harmful to the successfulness of advertisement, and potential brand image of a company. This is suggested in one study [7].!
‘Contrary to widespread practice, animation may not provide a benefit to advertisers: In fact, it
may even cost an ad’s success.’
I personally feel animated advertisements may catch the eye of a user, however it is likely that this can also be achieved from a static advertisement, if the product or service is of genuine interest to the user. The styles of animation may also have different effects on the user, not presented within these studies, i.e. subtle and obvious, however further studies would have to be conducted for evidence on this matter.!
I disagree with Fig. 6 as well, as it indicates animated advertisements are less obtrusive than static advertisements, which I find difficult to believe. I feel the experiment would have to be conducted a number of times, to ensure a reliable result was formed.
�21
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
2.3 Advertisement Frequency & Product Knowledge!A study by Kim, Kim, Sundar, and Pobil [4] concerning whether advertisement exposure helps recall rates proposes a valid argument. It is to be assumed that if a person is exposed to ten advertisements, it is more likely they will recall at least one advertisement, as opposed to if that same person was only exposed to two. It is to be noted that the study was completed, in relation to how much product knowledge subjects had over the advertised product.!
Two different exposure frequencies of six advertisements compared to two, were shown to the subjects, their knowledge on the subject of ‘cars’ varied from high to low. Subjects read though an eight page review on films, whilst being exposed to various car advertisements throughout.!
Subjects exposed to the higher frequency of advertisements were more likely to both purchase the advertised product, and recall the advertisement, shown by Fig. 7. This does not take in to account the varying product knowledge amongst subjects, therefore showing how exposure frequency alone improves the purchase intention, and recall rates of banner advertisements.!
!
!!!!
Subjects with high product knowledge on the advertised product, effectively recalled the advertisements easier, and had a higher purchase intent, than subjects who had little knowledge on the advertised product, shown by Fig. 8. The highlighted results for this particular study are shown by Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, whereby the frequency of banner advertisements, greatly impacts the outcome of recall rates, and purchase intent.
�22
Fig. 7 Fig. 8
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Subjects with high knowledge of the product were also more likely to purchase the product, high exposure levels only increased the intention very slightly. However, the more interesting finding is that subjects with very little knowledge on the product, were greatly effected by advertisement exposure, so much that they were significantly more likely to purchase the product, if they were highly exposed to the product.!
Subjects who already had high knowledge on the advertised product, were not effected by a high exposure frequency, in their ability to recall the advertisements. However subjects with low knowledge on the advertised product, were significantly influenced by a high expire of advertisements.!
The results from the study in this particular scenario, prove that high banner advertisement exposure increases recall rates, and even the intention to purchase products advertised. It is clear to see how advertisement exposure may increase recall rates and purchase intentions of users, even if they are goal-orientation (discussed in other studies [1,2]), and not intentionally searching for the product advertised. The high advertisement exposure could therefore boost product sales, thus making the same advertisements more effective, simply by increasing the amount of times the user comes in to contact with it.!
�23
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
2.3.1 Summary!The results from the study [4] indicate that initial product knowledge plays a great role in how likely a user is to both recall a banner advertisement, and take interest in its contents by product purchase intention. As high product knowledge directly relates to purchase intention and recall regardless of advertisement exposure (Fig. 8), it can be deduced that advertisements should directly relate to content on the webpage being viewed by a user.!
Results do however indicate that subjects with low product knowledge, are greatly influenced by higher advertisement exposure, providing an alternative option to relevant advertisements on related webpages. The reliability of high advertisement exposure is less than the aforementioned method, as this relies on the user remaining on the webpage for an extended period of time, and may result in frustration from the user.!
!
�24
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
2.4 Visual Hierarchy and SERPs!A study by Phillips, Yang and Djamasbi [9] investigated whether advertisements had any impact on users search behaviour on search engine result pages (SERPs), using the Google search engine.!
The ideology of visual hierarchy provided a basis as to the expectations and hypothesised results, that would be presented from this particular study. This ideology emphasises that items placed at the top of a webpage tend to be perceived as more important, and images are processed first.!
The study involved searching for certain specific information (key words), heat maps were grouped by the number of advertisements present on the SERPs. Due to the real-time nature of the study, advertisement numbers varied from none to three.!
‘The results from the heat maps indicated that users looked at the advertisements and the top
entries of the SERPs.’
This therefore proves in favour of the visual hierarchy ideology, as subjects also tended to ignore the lower section of webpages.!
77% of subjects who were exposed to advertisements on the SERPs looked at the advertisements, which somewhat contradicts banner-blindness in this regard. However subjects did tend to read entries more thoroughly, that were known advertisements, as there were simply glanced at (green heat map points rather than yellow or red).!
�25
Fig. 11
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
The most interesting findings from this study present that whilst advertisements were present on the SERPs, subjects viewed advertisements 10% of the time, entries 66%, and other 34%.!
Whilst advertisements were not present, entries were viewed 76% of the time, other remained static at 34%. This clearly indicates that advertisements tend to distract users from entries, rather than blank space, showing their effectiveness. It could be hypothesised that including more advertisements on a SERP, would further increase the viewing percentage of advertisements, reducing the subjects viewing of non-advertisement elements.!
To indicate the effectiveness of the presence of advertisements versus their absence, both fixation count and fixation duration are higher when advertisements are not present. This therefore supports the competition for attention theory, whereby the advertisements may distract the subjects viewing attention. It was expected that the advertisements would take away the attention from other search entries, which is proven below (Fig. 12 & Fig. 13).
�26
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
2.4.1 Summary!From the sufficient evidence provided from this particular study, in accordance with the visual hierarchy ideology [18], clear indication points to greater acknowledgement of elements (advertisements or not) by users, if they are located in the top section of a webpage.!
Advertisements located at the top of a webpage distracted the attention of subjects, indicating a strong effectiveness of the advertisements. The heat maps also indicate how users browse webpages, with the subconscious tendency to ignore the lower half of webpages. The largest and by far most popular search engine, Google, places advertisements before any other website links, when a search page is returned. It is with confidence to suggest that the top left screen area, is the most effective location to insert advertisements (due to the reading path of users). Faraday [15] also references the work of Fleming, stating!
‘Items placed to the left and top of centre tend to be noticed first and are considered more
important.’
My personal opinion also follows the same ideology as visual hierarchy, and the provided evidence from Phillips, Yang and Djamasbi [9], as general useful links, and other webpage elements, are located in the top left section of a webpage. This ideal location also serves as a placeholder for other prominent company or website branding / advertising, whereby their service is part of the product i.e. Amazon, Netflix, Youtube.!
!
�27
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.0 Design!
3.1 Methodology!The review of current and past literature presented a number of common themes, all of which played some significant role in the effectiveness of banner advertisements. However studies independently used a wide variation of methodologies, which assisted in the conclusion of their study and presentation of relevant findings.!
Some methodologies were more popular than others, and used on a more regular basis. Studies referred to within the Literature Review (Chapter 2) primarily alternated between two distinct methodologies. I have categorised these studies in to the most suitable methodology, which best describes the work conducted in each study.!
3.1.1 Website Searching (Varying Criteria)!The Website Searching methodology has been executed in a number of studies [1, 7, 9, 17], previously noted in the Literature Review, and has been successful in finding concrete results, whereby the hypothesis of a study could either be proven or disproven reliably.!
Primarily used to determine how different intentions can effect the outcome from a similar task, Website Searching proved to be very efficient, i.e. subjects would search a website with a specific goal, vs no direct goal. Studies [1, 17] included pre-study briefs, distributed evenly amongst subjects, whereby half of subjects searched a website with known criteria (narrow), and the other half searched freely (aimless / explorative).!
As this methodology focuses on subjects searching for specific information, heat maps [9] and other gaze replay alternatives can be created, which allow a visual representation of how a subject viewed a website.!
The benefit of this methodology is that concrete results can be formed based on differentiating intentions of subjects. The subjects criteria has already been pre-determined via the brief, and visual replays help to indicate accurate data, which otherwise may not be obtained using alternative, post-study evaluations.!
�28
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.1.2 Advertisement Exposure!Similar to the prior methodology, the Advertisement Exposure also proved to be popular amongst numerous studies [2, 4].!
Advertisement Exposure much like Website Searching allowed the study conductors to use websites, and edit their content to expose subjects to advertisements of varying quantities. Search tasks were still completed in this method in some studies [2], however the study exposed subjects to varying advertisement quantities, to provide the most reliable results possible, in relevance to the study hypothesis.!
Selecting the exact exposure of banner advertisements a subject will experience, also ensures studies [4] greater accuracy in specific numbers, i.e. 2 vs 6 advertisements, rather than high vs low. Whereby future studies have a solid topic background foundation, which can be used as a basis of understanding, prior to conducting new research.!
The exposure of advertisements may be increased or decreased at any given time, allowing for further studies with greater ease, this methodology is highly controlled, producing results that are conclusive in their findings.!
The benefit of this methodology is that advertisement exposure could be monitored and selected on a subject basis, rather than generic website browsers where advertisement numbers are inconsistent, and may not appear at all. Subjects do not have to be identified and grouped based on the number of advertisements present within a study, therefore providing a larger sample to obtain reliable results from.!
!
�29
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.1.3 Post Recall and Recognition Evaluations!The final methodology that played an important role in a number of studies [2, 7, 17], which also appeared in the previous two methods, is Post Recall and Recognition Evaluations. This methodology allows the entire study to be completed, then after a varying amount of time, an exam or series of questions will be conducted.!
Studies [2] starting with a search task, used post evaluations provided the results to either prove or disprove a hypothesis, i.e.!
‘Subjects did not know they would have to recall these advertisements at a later time.’!
This ensured the reliability of the study, ensuring results were of a true replication to how the subjects reacted in the study (i.e. intentionally examining advertisements), eliminating falsified results.!
Other studies which used this method, asked subjects to ‘rank their impressions of experienced workload for each banner advertisement’ [7]. This could only be completed post study, similar to [17]. Whereby a 7 minute break followed a study (timing irrelevant), recall and recognition tasks helped to provide a conclusion.!
Subjects had to recall advertisements by listing company names, products and services. Further recall evaluations included pictorial motives and coloration of advertisements. The recognition section let subjects rate how confident they were that a particular banner advertisement had been present in the study (10 minutes prior).!
This style of method provides statistics of how subjects recall and recognise advertisements once the study environment has been eliminated. The break in-between study and questioning provides a relaxing situation for subjects, whereby the advertisement information is not embedded in to their memory. This is a really effective methodology, as it determines how people remember advertisements once they are no longer in view, and for how long a person may remember an advertisement’s content. This methodology therefore provides some criteria to test how successful an advertisement is, on leaving an impression on a particular group of subjects.!
This methodology may not be as reliable as others, as the break time in-between study and questions may vary greatly. It is a variable which can considerably effect what information on banner advertisements a subject will retain. The wording of questions may also influence what banner advertisement information a subject can regurgitate on paper.
�30
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.2 Method Chosen!The method that I have chosen to conduct my own study concerning banner-blindness in on-line advertising, contains a mixture of key elements from the methodologies described in chapter 3.1. The elements have been chosen carefully, to ensure the most reliable results possible, can be obtained both statistically and visually, for later evaluation.!
I have not reused any of the methods discussed in chapter 3.1 onwards in their entirety, as any one particular method did not fulfil all of the needs of my study. However combining certain sections from individual study methods and incorporating my own chosen methods (not previously used), I could retrieve a strong set of data results. The study method of choice used, covers a wider spectrum of banner-blindness than any of the previous methods, which provides a basis of understanding for the phenomenon / problem, whereby other methods still rely on the results from a number of other sources.!
The method I have chosen attempts to incorporate how users perceive banner-blindness in a real-world environment, browsing modern websites voluntarily in different scenarios, viewing static webpage content and providing feedback through a post study questionnaire. The individual sections of the study method of choice will be discussed below.!
There are two main sections to the method I have chosen (section 1 has 3 subsections), explained below, with justification as to why I have chosen this method, and how it is relevant for this particular study.!
The entirety of section 1 used eye-tracking software and a webcam with speakers, to track the visual gaze of subjects, and to record their video and audio throughout.!
!
�31
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.2.1 Section One of Method Chosen!
Specific Websites (1.0)!The first subsection of section 1 individually presented 5 pre-determined websites on screen for a set duration, whereby the subject was instructed to browse the website as they would normally. The subjects were given free roam on the website (they were not restricted on how to use the website i.e. links).!
The reasoning behind 5 websites being shown rather than a smaller number, allowed the results to form a more reliable trend, across a multitude of website. Advertisement banners vary on almost all websites, and this section provided a large overview which covered many different aspects i.e. animation, size and location.!
Bias was also eliminated, as a subject may have a specific interest in one of the websites content, or use the website on a regular basis. It is unlikely that the subject would use or have a great interest in 5 completely different topics. Further reasoning would be to counter interruptions in the gaze replays and eye-tracking software if there were any, it would also be easier to spot anomalies within a large dataset (rather than a small dataset).!
This subsection of the study can be classed as explorative as there was no search criteria for the subjects to find, and they could browse the website shown as desired. However the subject was limited to the specific website, and could not divert to another website if they desired. Therefore this subsection is considered to be the narrow part of the study, influenced from the prior method mentioned in 3.1.1.!
This subsection of the study method which I have adopted has been separated from the explorative section, and is to be completed by 100% of subjects, unlike the method 3.1.1 where only a percentage of subjects completed a similar task.
�32
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
SERP Websites (Section 1.1)!The second subsection of section 1 individually presented 4 pre-determined SERPs (Search Engine Result Pages), for specific topics. Once the SERP had displayed on-screen, subjects had a set duration of time to utilise the search, whereby they could click any links found from the search. However subjects were prompted not to perform their own searches. This subsection is considered to be the wider (more explorative) aspect of the study, as subjects chose which websites to view for the specific topics, unlike the previous section where the website was pre-determined.!
A reasonable size of 4 topics were chosen to provide variety, similar to the subsection prior, ensuring different website layouts were present, and more reliable results could be obtained. It was important to note that subjects knew they could return to the SERP by using the back button within the browser. Subjects did not return to the SERP in every instance, however with multiple chances to do so, it did occur. Bias again became a lesser factor, as the varying numerous topics provided a smaller possibility, that subjects would be knowledgable on all topics. Gaze replays may also form patterns with a larger dataset, which may not be present in a smaller dataset, where anomalies are harder to identify, and trends appear less significant.!
Allowing subjects more variety in available websites, and providing a sense of choice as to which website the subject wishes to view, opposed to forcing a particular website on the subject, allows for a more explorative insight / reaction from subjects.!
Vast differentiating browsing patterns may be visible and noted here, compared to browsing patterns shown in the Specific Websites subsection, providing an oversight on how user-intention contributes to banner-blindness.!
This subsection of the study method which I have adopted has been separated from the narrow section described in 1.0, and is to be completed by 100% of subjects, for comparative purposes, to determine how subjects browse under different circumstances.
�33
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Website Screenshots (Section 1.2)!The third subsection of section 1 individually presented 6 images (screenshots) that represented the home screens of established websites. The screenshots were displayed on-screen for an equal set period of time, subjects were instructed to view the screenshots for the entire duration that they were visible. If subjects followed instructions, less bias results would be found, as subjects may otherwise only view the screenshots of websites that were of interest.!
This subsection of the study followed suit with the amount of screenshots (6) as 4-6 elements per subsection provide enough statistical data to form reliable trends, and find anomalies, compared to a smaller dataset of 1-2 elements per subsection.!
The multiple screenshots also provide varying website layouts for banner-blindness comparison purposes, i.e. traditional navigation bar layout vs grid-style layout, which will be discussed in the results.!
Website screenshots provide a controlled and reliable setting, as subjects could simply be shown a website home screen (whilst being instructed not to use the keyboard / mouse), however advertisements constantly change. This would therefore introduce another variable, of which advertisements were effective, due to their colour, content or other varying elements.!
Gaze Replays will continue to capture the subject and their browsing patterns, where heat maps and video playback files can be created, for analysis and data comparison purposes.!
I have not seen this methodology performed in other previous studies noted in the literature review (chapter 2), however I feel the results may be valuable due to the controlled state and constant visual appearance of the specific websites, across the entire subject range.!
This subsection provides a relaxing activity for subjects, which does not require much mental ability, or the requirement of browsing a website for a set period of time. This activity will be followed by a small post-study recall and recognition questionnaire, categorised as section 2 of the study methodology I have chosen.!
�34
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.2.1 Section Two of Method Chosen!
Post Recall and Recognition Questionnaire (Section 2.0)!Post-completion of section 1, subjects would be handed a small one-page questionnaire concerning the study they had just participated in, and some general browsing questions.!
As the SERP and Specific website sections of the method can be evaluated using gaze replays and heat maps alone, the questions primarily focused on the 6 screenshots (subsection 3), as this section remainder consistent and controlled throughout all subjects.!
The second set of questions focused on the general browsing of subjects in a natural environment (their home). Questions included such elements as the advertised links from a Google search, which can be related to the SERP subsection of the study. An additional comments section has also been included for any other notes subjects wish to present.!
The questionnaire should hopefully provide some statistics on the recall & recognition of advertisements, or the lack of, to either prove or disprove banner-blindness within the 6 website screenshots. Whereby deductive reasoning may be applied to find common advertisement aspects i.e. shape, colour, which subjects tend to ignore.!
The questionnaire is to be completed as soon as the subject completes section1 in its entirety, advertisements are still fresh in the mind, and should have a high recall rate, if they were effective.
�35
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.3 The Usability Lab!
3.3.1 Facilities and Functionality of the Usability Lab!The Usability Lab (room E148 John Dalton Building) location was used to perform all of the studies for my desired methodology, due to the facilities accessible, and state of the art software.!
The laboratory mimics the living room environment for comfort and relaxation purposes, with an observation lounge comprised of settee’s and chairs. Furnishings allow for a real-world environment, however remote control cameras and microphones are located in the room corners, to capture user behaviour i.e. audio, visual and even facial expressions.!
The observation suite is located in a separate room looking through a one-way glass pane, whereby monitors display each video captured by the remove-cameras, and subject viewing is clear for evaluation purposes.!
The remote eye tracking hardware is the SMI RED 250, which records data for fixation points of the subjects gaze and pupil dilation, and scan paths the subjects has performed. The BeGaze software analyses the output, to produce heat maps, scan path videos and other visual representations of the data in its final form, ready for evaluation [19].
�36
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.3.2 Observation Lounge and Subject Study Area!The images below were taken on the 20th February 2014 and are a valid representation of the usability lab, as it were at the time subjects participated in the banner-blindness study.!
Fig. 14 depicts the observation lounge which intentionally mimics a living room styled environment, to ensure subjects feel relaxed and at ease whilst taking part in studies.!
Fig. 15 depicts the computer and webcam that subjects used throughout the duration of this study, which uses remote eye-tracking hardware described in 3.3.1.!
!
3.3.3 Observation Suite!The observation suite is located behind the one-way glass panel shown in Fig. 14.!
Fig. 16 depicts the computer using BeGaze software to create heat maps / gaze replays.!
Fig. 17 depicts additional monitors which show the observation lounge, and the computers display, which subjects are exposed to throughout the study.!
�37
Fig. 14 Fig. 15
Fig. 16 Fig. 17
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.3.4 Using the Usability Lab (The Study)!The environmental setup of the usability lab, provided adequate space, whereby subject participants could become comfortable. Subjects were firstly presented with a Task Briefing sheet, which described what the study contained in a short paragraph, and the purpose of the study.!
A Statement of Consent was also presented to the subjects, who were taking part voluntarily. As subjects were not obliged to participate, they could leave at any time during the experiment, whereby their data would be incomplete, unprocessed and deleted.!
If the subjects continued with the experiment (100% of subjects did), the Statement of Consent form had to be signed and the study could begin shortly after. A questionnaire sheet faced down on the table located near where subjects were seated, could only be completed once the study was over; subjects could not view the questionnaire beforehand.!
Once the subjects (it should be noted that studies were conducted individually) were ready to commence with the study, they were seated in front of the sole computer in the usability lab, and guided through the setup of calibrating the eye-tracking software. Once this step had been completed, the computer displayed an introductory slide for 30 seconds, stating that the study would commence after this short period of time, and the subjects should be ready to begin.!
Subjects had the choice as to whether I (Darran Mottershead, Project Candidate), should remain seated in the observation lounge where the study would take place, or to exit the observation lounge to the observation suite (behind the one way glass panel). The option was present in case subjects required any additional assistance with the study, however if I were to be present, I could not talk, or influence the subjects in any form.!
The entirety of the study can be found in the Appendices.
�38
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Section 1.0 of the Study!As described in the 3.2 Chosen Method chapter, the study was divided in to Section 1 containing 3 subsections, and the post-study questionnaire categorised as subsection 2. Subsection 1 starts after the previous introductory slide has been displayed, displaying another slide (for 20 seconds) which introduces this section of the study.!
The slide reads as follows:!
You will be shown 5 websites, please browse the websites as you would do in your own home.
Each website will be shown for 1 minute.
You may click any links found within the website.
The 5 websites of choice for this section of the study range in topic category and website layout. This allows for a more generalised unbiased website overview, and reliable result dataset for banner-blindness, the websites chosen are as follows:!
• http://www.theguardian.com/uk!
• http://www.skysports.com/!
• http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/!
• http://9to5mac.com/!
• http://www.tvguide.co.uk/!
Subjects were able to browse each website for a maximum of 1 minute, and were prompted not to perform their own searches, or navigate away from the chosen websites. Subjects were however allowed to navigate through the chosen website using links, images, articles or other elements found within the website.!
Each of the 5 websites remained consistent throughout the study for every subject, therefore banner-blindness could be monitored closely. Subjects did browse the websites in differentiating manners i.e. not navigating away from the first webpage displayed, and banner advertisements sometimes varied for individual subjects.
�39
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Section 1.1 of the Study!Once subsection 1 has been completed, subsection 2 of the study will immediately follow, this phase of the study has been categorised as a broader search task, as subjects have multiple website options available to view. Following the study layout of the prior subsection 1, a slide will be displayed on screen (for 20 seconds), which introduces this section of the study.!
The slide reads as follows:!
You will be shown a number of google searches for different topics e.g. ‘Sports’.
Topics will automatically change after 1 minute.
You may click any links found from the searches, please do not perform your own searches.
The 4 Google SERP of choice for this section of the study range in topic category and website layout. This allows for a more generalised unbiased website overview, and reliable result dataset for banner-blindness, the SERPs chosen are as follows:!
• Technology!
• Furniture!
• Hotels!
• Mobile Phones!
Similar to subsection 1, subjects were able to browse each SERP for a maximum of 1 minute, whereby the next SERP would then be displayed automatically. Under no circumstances were the subjects to return to past SERPs or perform their own searches using any search engine. The subjects could however click a given link to a website found from the SERP topics (from the study), navigate back to the SERP using the browsers back button, and begin viewing another website.!
This provides the optional element of multiple websites to be viewed by the same person, data interpreted from this is less reliable, due to the fact subjects will not all visit the same websites, however it gives a greater insight in to banner-blindness on a realistic level.!
!
�40
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Section 1.2 of the Study!Once subsection 2 has been completed, subsection 3 of the study will immediately follow, this phase of the study has been categorised as the most controlled section, as it is completely consistent amongst all subjects. Following the study layout of the prior subsection 1, a slide will be displayed on screen (for 20 seconds), which introduces this section of the study.!
The slide reads as follows:!
You will be shown a number of static website images.
Images will automatically change after 15 seconds.
Please view the images for the entire duration that they appear on screen.
The 6 Website Screenshots for this section of the study have varying criteria in terms of their categories i.e. online shopping (Ebay and Amazon and news (BBC News and TheVerge). The layouts of the website screenshots shown vary with differentiating numbers of banner advertisements, in varying locations per website. The Website Screenshots are as follows:!
• Ebay!
• BBC News!
• Youtube!
• Amazon!
• TheVerge!
• Racing Post!
The screenshots were displayed immediately after the introductory slide had been shown for the full 20 second duration, screenshots were displayed for 15 seconds each, allowing enough time for information to be retained in the subjects memory. It should be noted that subjects did not know prior to the study that they would have to retain information concerning any part of the study or its contents.!
All subjects participated in the post-study questionnaire, which commenced immediately after the 6 screenshots, and the final slide had been displayed on screen.!
�41
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Section 2.0 of the Study!Section 2 of the study commenced immediately after section 1.2 of the study and the concluding final slide had been displayed. The final slide reads as follows:!
End
The study has now finished.
Please complete the questionnaire on the desk behind you.
The sheet will be faced down and labelled ‘Questionnaire’.
Once you have completed the questionnaire, raise your hand to indicate you have finished.
The Post Recall and Recognition Questionnaire consisted of generic questions of how users handled advertisements at home, in addition to what advertisements they remembered from the study (primarily from the website screenshots) they had just taken participated in.!
The questions subjects were given are as follows:!
Screenshot Questions!
1) Do you remember any of the advertisements shown from any of the 6 screenshots? Yes / No!
2) What was the first advertisement that comes to mind (if any)?!
3) Please list all of the advertisements you can remember.!
General Questions!
1. Would you usually click on advertisements at home, or ignore them? Click Them / Ignore Them!
2. Do you feel the position of an advertisement can change the effect it has on a user? Yes / No!
3. Do you feel an animated advertisement is more effective than a static advertisement? Yes / No!
4. Whilst performing a generic Google search, do you tend to click the advertised links (advertised links are surrounded by a yellow / beige box)? Yes / No / Sometimes!
�42
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.4 Method Pilot!
3.4.1 Background Testing!The finalised draft of the study method, and all tasks that subjects would have to complete, faced positive criticisms and suggested alterations by numerous peers. This ensured sections contained productive and meaningful tasks (using reliable websites), and the post-study questionnaire contained questions that would provide valid statistical data, which could not be mis-interpreted.!
Theoretical testing had been established, however a pilot of the study would test both the study in a real-world situation, with a subject unknowing towards the scenario or study contents, and my personal ability to conduct the study. This allowed for further alterations to be made on the finalised study plan, based on the outcome of the study, and the performance or feelings portrayed by the subject, who volunteered to pilot the method.!
The pilot test commenced in November 2014.!
3.4.2 Pilot Results!Scan paths and gaze replays were generated from the pilot, gaze replays capture audio and video for the entire duration that subjects participate in the study, and end when the final slide has been displayed introducing the post recall and recognition questionnaire.!
The scan paths [Fig. 18] generate lines and differentiating sized circles across a static captured image of the screen, beginning with the first point a subject viewed. Numbers indicate the order in which a subject fixated their eyes on specific points of a webpage, circles indicate the length of time in which a subject fixated on a specific point of a webpage (larger circles equal a greater amount of time).
�43
Fig. 18
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
3.4.3 Summary of Pilot!The scan paths and gaze replays generated from the pilot results provide enough accurate and relevant information in terms of banner-blindness, and the effect the phenomenon has on subjects, under varying criteria. Therefore the software which generates these visual result representations, and the study plan designed and documented in chapter 3.0, is sufficient in providing conclusive results, and logical suggestions to reduce the banner-blindness effect, helping to achieve the aim of this study.!
Alterations were made to both the study method, and the post-study questionnaire that would follow. Alterations made are as follows:!
Display durations for introductory slides to study sections were shortened, as testing showed they could be read in detail multiple times before they disappeared.!
Website choices, topic SERPs and website screenshots underwent some changes, as ‘better’ alternatives were found, i.e. varying layouts and differentiating categorisations.!
The wording of questions to eliminate mis-interpretation, and clear indication of question relativity i.e. the inclusion of ‘screenshot questions’ and ‘general questions’ titles.!
Once the pilot test had been completed by Oliver Hemsted, I felt it would be beneficial to obtain an interpretation of how the study went, in terms of feelings towards the study in general, and the results generated from the session (gaze replays and heat maps).!
‘It was really intriguing learning the methods involved in tracking vision using a combination of
cameras and inputs. I also discovered how much as a frequent internet user how quickly you
become desensitised to advertisements.’
!
�44
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.0 Result Discussion!The study methodology used and performed in the usability lab, tested several subjects under comparable circumstances, which resulted in the production of reliable data. The webpages tested are also comparable to an extent, however their advertisements may vary on each visit.!
The results from each subsection of the study will be recorded individually with visual graph representations, conforming to a final summary overview.!
4.1 Specific Websites Results!In the first subsection of the study subjects may still be adjusting to the surrounding usability lab, and the scenario of having their video and audio recorded for future usage. It should also be noted that for the first website shown 9to5mac, the eye tracking software only captured 60% of recordings due to technical faults. It would be unreliable to redo this section of the study, as subjects had already been exposed to this website. The website noted is considered to be an anomaly, however results will be listed for general evaluation.!
Website Results Captured (%)
Seen By (Subject %)
Website Positioning
AdditionalNotes
The Guardian 10080!
40
Top, Centre!
Right SideN/A
Sky Sports 100 100 Top, Centre N/A
National Rail 10040!
40
Top, Centre!
Right SideN/A
9to5mac 60 (Technical Fault)
33%!
0
Top, Left!
Right Side
Only 60% of results were captured, this data is
regarded as an anomaly.
TVGuide 100100!
0
Top, Centre!
Top, Right
Advertisements only appeared for 40% of
subjects.
�45
Table. 1
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
The most interesting factor deduced from the specific websites table, indicates that the ‘Top, Centre’ positioning on a webpage is the most effective area, in which a user is most likely to view an advertisement, even on a website that the user may not be particularly interested in. This however may depend on the advertisement style, such as colouring, size and its proximity. Further images will evaluate these factors.!
The images below have been taken from the study, they include scan paths generated by the eye tracking hardware in conjunction with the BeGaze software, and are the results of 2 different subjects. !
Alternative advertisements are shown on each visit. However the most noticeable element is the same Google Play advertisement shown in 2 separate locations on the same visit. The Top, Centre advertisement gained significant attention from the subject, and the Top, Right advertisement was completely ignored.!
This individual advertisement again proves that Top, Centre webpage positioning for advertisements is the most effective. The advertisement is also surrounded by vast white space, whereby the Gestalt Principle of proximity determines that the advertisement will not be related to any other nearby elements, as the distance is too great. A users attention and gaze may be attracted to the blank area, as this may be rare amongst an otherwise cluttered, and colourful website. The black Mercedes Benz advertisement also gained 0% attention from subjects, and is located in the same position as the alternative Google Play advertisement (Top, Right). It may be logical to assume this position is ineffective for advertisement placement.
�46
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
The advertisements shown on the 9to5mac website present interesting information, however as noted only 60% of data could be retrieved by the eye tracking software for this website.!
The advertisements located Top, Left of the website were either ignored or only briefly touched on by subjects, which portrays their ineffectiveness.!
These advertisements do not conform to the proposed effective proximity
principle, as the addition of redundant text and imagery, exaggerates a series of elements cluttered together, as opposed to one single distinct element.!
Advertisements located on the right side of the website were also greatly ignored by subjects, due to their extreme advertisement styling of a coloured square, which subjects are less likely interpret as the main body or content of a webpage. This styling of advertisements shown to the right, were ignored by 100% of subjects, indicating their ineffectiveness. Other advertisements located on the right side of websites, which appears to be the most prominent of the two sides (left is mostly used for navigation), were only viewed by 40% of subjects at any one time.!
Also located on the right hand side of the 9to5mac website, was an Amazon widget, which could easily be mistaken for an advertisement, given its positioning and closeness to the two advertisements shown above. However this is the only element on the right side of the website (unrelated to the body content of the website) that gained any attention. Similarly to the Google Play advertisements found on the TVGuide website, the look is clean, professional, and has little close proximity, the link elements can be differentiated easily.!
�47
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
The Guardian website displayed a number of varying advertisements at the Top, Centre location of the webpage, the Google Play advertisement provides a comparable result as it was also shown on the TVGuide website. !
The two advertisements depict the same advertisement with varying designs, for two individual subjects, which were both effective as they follow the same design aspect in terms of coloration and minimalism. Additionally the ORIS advertisement gained similar subject attention, with its professional colour scheme, and minimalistic design.!
Alternative banner advertisements which conform to the older style of attempting to gain the users attention, by using coloration and bright text, appears to be ineffective, shown in the 3 different advertisements oh the National Rail website (Top, Centre). The advertisements shown were also animated, it is uncertain to say whether this decreased the advertisements effectiveness.!
It should not be overlooked that the middle advertisement below gained some subject attention, this could be where the text animated throughout the banner advertisement, however if this was the case it still remained ineffective amongst the majority of subjects.!
The 3 advertisements shown (with scan path annotations) are from 3 individual subjects, and should be treated as such, indicating a reliable result, for this particular style of advertisement.
�48
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.2 SERP Websites Results!In the second subsection of the study subjects were first presented with the SERPs for a specific category, the scan paths generated on the individual searches below, indicate that (left image) subjects would view links that were ‘ads related to (search topic)’, even sponsored images such as the phones on the right side of the searches.!
However (right image), subjects would not click the links labeled ‘ads related to (search topic)’ rendering them ineffective, as the click-through rate was 0%. Subjects tended to scroll further down the SERP, and click a link that was not advertised (left image), however on SERPs that did not contain ad results, subjects may click any of the first links that were presented (right image), scrolling would also be less erratic.!
During this subsection of the study, 100% of subjects viewed the advertised links, however 0% of subjects clicked these links, effectively bypassing these links and clicking a link further down the SERP, that was not advertised.!
These statistics support the questionnaire results later discussed, whereby 100% of subjects noted that they would not usually click advertised links in their own home.
�49
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
There was no increase in advertisement viewing in the explorative subsection of the study, which has been a proven factor in previous studies related to within chapter 2 [1, 3, 7, 17] , however this subsection was ‘the most explorative’, yet still had restrictions i.e. that category for the subjects was chosen beforehand.!
Advertisements were viewed some of the time, which is comparative to the narrow subsection of the study, where subjects were presented with a single website to view. Shown in the images above with included scan paths, subjects often skipped advertisement banners entirely (left), however if the subjects gaze did land on the advertisement (right), it was only for a very short period of time, and did not focus on text or advertisement content, indicated by the small spherical scan path points.!
The strict methodology of how the average internet user may browse the internet in general, has been examined during the study, and subjects have been found to process webpage content in using a set mannerism.!
The methodology the average subject followed throughout the study is as follows:!
• Scan the breadth of the webpage.!
• Scan the main body content of the webpage (centre focused)!
• Scroll vertically down the webpage to view additional content.
�50
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Breadth!
Subjects would continue to view websites in subsection 2 as they previous viewed websites in subsection 1. Subjects initially scanned the presented webpage as it appeared on screen, before any scrolling or other alterations to the visible image took place. Subjects would scan the breadth of the webpage, which generally consisted of the navigation bar or other key elements found within the webpage. This may be sidebars or main images presented close to the top of the webpage.!
The image above shows how a subject quickly scans the entire top section of a webpage, no advertisements are present, however advertisements
located in this section of a webpage have the highest viewing percentage. Secondly, the subject gaze focuses further down the webpage on another navigation bar, spreading the entire breadth of the webpage.!
The Carphone Warehouse scan path indicates how the subject viewed the majority of the breadth of the webpage, before any other elements.!
The subject scanned the breadth of the O2 webpage, from the left navigation menu to the right navigation menu. The subjects scan path indicates the bold white text was the first point of interest.!
Subjects seemingly scan the breadth of webpages starting from the navigation bar. In this instance, the banner advertisement above the navigation bar was mostly ignored by the subject.
�51
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Scan!
Once subjects have viewed the breadth of the webpage (majority of the time), they would then scan the webpage body, mainly focusing on the centre of the content. The scan path on the Carphone Warehouse image (previously used to describe the breadth attribute), clearly depicts how the subject structured their viewing of the webpage. Initially the subject viewed without intention on their first gaze (white space), however from further fixed gaze plots (the majority of gazes 2 through 14), the subject intentionally scanned the breadth of the webpage, viewing the navigation bar elements, then focusing on the centre of the webpage content (15 onwards remained consistently centre focused).!
The following images show how the scanning patterns of webpages can vary, depending on the content of the specific webpage. Subjects may scan webpages by following content
closely, whereby content titles and subheading are read logically, followed by the relative content, then a next section is viewed in a similar manner.!
If webpages are laid out to showcase products, where
text content is scarce, subjects appear to scan the webpage erratically, however the scan paths indicate logical structure. Subjects scan important information such as the product image, and their pricing, shown (left) where subjects continually place their gaze on the price on each of the 3 products visible.
�52
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Scroll!
It is uncommon for subjects to scroll vertically through a webpage, the low statistics for subjects who scrolled may be due to the 1 minute time allowance provided for each category.!
The image (left) indicates how advertisements at the top of a webpage are likely to be noticed, supporting the table produced in chapter 4.1 whereby advertisements located Top, Centre were noticed between 80% and 100% of the time. Advertisements located on the right side were only noticed 40% of the time (maximum). Subjects remained consistent with the way they viewed advertisements throughout both the Specific Website and SERP Website sections of the study.!
The image relating to the TESCO direct website indicates how subjects tend to view the webpage as it is displayed, with very little intention to scroll, to find further information.!
This again supports the high percentage of advertisements viewed in the Top, Centre location of a webpage. Advertisements are rarely located in the centre of a webpage that is not at the top or bottom.!
As users do not generally scroll through a webpage, advertisements positioned half way down, or near the bottom of a webpage are ineffective.!
The ideal positioning of advertisements is hereby reinforced to be located at the top of a webpage. The subject in this study only viewed the top 25% of the webpage, the entirety of the webpage that was visible on screen (without scrolling) is indicated by the solid grey line (annoyed by the solid red circle).
�53
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.3 Website Screenshots Results!In the third subsection of the study subjects viewed website screenshots containing advertisements, from the gaze replays, it can be noted that subjects viewed the advertisements for the full duration that they appeared on screen as instructed.!
The resulting figures from the study effectively disprove or question the effectiveness of advertisement frequency, as Racing Post with 5 advertisements per visit were only seen by 64% of all subjects. Therefore only 3 advertisements were seen by the average subject, rendering the remaining 2 advertisements completely ineffective.!
The advertisements on the Racing Post website were primarily located on the right side of the website, which has been proven to be less effective (chapter 4.1) than alternative locations. They were also in close proximity with one another, making it difficult to distinguish between the advertisements, resulting in a solid block of content.
Website Screenshot
Number of Advertisements
Seen By (Subject %) Notes
Ebay 1 100 N/A
BBC News N/A N/A No advertisements (use for comparative purposes).
Youtube 1 60 N/A
Amazon 2 80 N/A
The Verge 1 60 N/A
Racing Post 5 64 Subjects viewed on average 3/5 advertisements.
�54
Table. 2
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Ebay had 1 advertisement which was seen by 100% of subjects, Amazon followed closely with 80% of subjects viewing the 2 advertisements on the screenshot. Both main product advertisements differentiate in their appearance, as the Kindle appears to conform with the website layout blending in with the content of the webpage, and Vodafone is a simple banner-style with colour. The square advertisement on the right side of Amazon stands out with its bold colours contradicting the mostly white webpage.!
The overall standing figures for advertisements in the website screenshot subsection of the study, show positive findings for all websites as an average.!
A significant majority of all advertisements were viewed by subjects (7/10 advertisements) in this particular study, however as these are static website screenshots, the evidence provided is limited. If the subjects were to interact with the website i.e. scrolling and
adjusting through content via the use of links, the viewed advertisement percentage may be less. What the statistics do show however is that advertisement frequency appears to be ineffective, and advertisements with less close proximity to other webpage elements still remain consistently more noticeable. The BBC website screenshot provides comparative scan paths (as the website contains no advertisements), that subjects will focus on the centre of a webpage more than the sides. This supports results from chapter 4.1, whereby users mostly focused on the centre of a webpage.
Total Number of Advertisements
Total Number of Advertisements
Seen
Total Number of Advertisements
Seen (%)
Advertisements Seen By Subject
(Average)
50 35 70 7
�55
Table. 3
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.2 Post Recall and Recognition Questionnaire Results!Questions relating to the website screenshots section of the study overwhelmingly indicate the presence of banner-blindness, especially when subjects were asked for any details on advertisements, or even to recall multiple advertisements. These questions followed closely to the relevant section of the study, with very little time delay, this also indicates subjects could not retain information on advertisements, even though the period of time since being exposed to the advertisements were extremely short.!
Subjects were questioned as to whether they remembered any advertisements that were visible from the 6 website screenshots. 80% of subjects indicated they remembered an advertisement. When subjects were questioned on the first advertisement that came to mind, 75% of the subjects who remembered any advertisements, answered with the Kindle advertisement.!
The Kindle advertisement was in the middle of the screen, centred, lacked colour, looked professional and was completely surrounded by blank white spacing. As 75% of the total amount of subjects who remembered advertisements, remembered the Kindle advertisement most prominently, the importance of this advertisement, and its elements should not be overlooked. It is possible to say that advertisements which adopt this style may also see an increase in users noticing the advertisement, more so than if the advertisements remained in alternate locations, clustered with other webpage content.!
When subjects were asked to list all of the advertisements that they could remember, additional advertisements were mentioned in addition to the Kindle, however details were vague, indicating information such as the company and specific content, could not be retained or recalled.!
Although the question clearly indicated that subjects should list advertisements they recalled from the website screenshots, subjects included items such as ‘Microsoft’, ‘Ebay’ and ‘furniture’. These listed guesses or misconceptions of advertisements either relating to previous subsections of the study, or the screenshot in general, have been removed from the resulting data and treated as anomalies, as they were not present.
�56
20%
80%
Yes No
0
25
50
75
100
First Advertisement Remembered
Kindle OtherFig. 20
Fig. 19
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
The statistics below list the advertisements shown within the website screenshots, and the percentages of subjects who looked at, and recalled them.!
The Vodafone and the Kindle advertisement were both located in similar locations in relation the web entire webpage, however the Kindle advertisement was a large square and the Vodafone advertisement was a longer rectangle, which also incorporated a lot more colour.!
The other major contributing factor may be Proximity which is one of the [20] 7 Gestalt Principles, defining that objects which are close together are perceived as a group, and objects that are far away are perceived to be separate. As the Vodafone advertisement is extremely close to several other elements within the webpage, it may be overlooked, or considered as part of a group of objects, unlike the Kindle advertisement which is clearly separate and therefore appears more exaggerated (shown by the images below).
TheAdvertisement
Seen By (Subject %)
Recalled By (Subject %)
Website Positioning
AdditionalNotes
Kindle 80 80 Middle, Centre N/A
Renault 40 0 Top, Right N/A
William Hill 60 0 Middle, Right Subject noted ‘Betting App’
bet365 60 0 Middle, Right Subject noted ‘Betting App’
Ladbrokes 40 0 Middle, Right Subject noted ‘Betting App’
Halifax 60 20 Top, Centre Subject noted ‘Bank'
Vodafone 100 0 Middle, Centre Subject noted ‘Phones'
Alienware 40 0 Top, Centre N/A
�57
Table. 4
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Further questions from the post study questionnaire completed by all subjects related to more generalised advertisement and search features and implementations. The results were conclusive in all 3 questions. The results are as follows: !
• Would you usually click on advertisements at home, or ignore them?!
80% would ignore.!
• Do you feel the position of an advertisement can change the effect it has on a user?!
100% said yes.!
• Do you feel an animated advertisement is more effective than a static advertisement?!
80% said no.!
• Whilst performing a generic Google search, do you tend to click the advertised links (advertised links are surrounded by a yellow / beige box)?!
100% said no.
�58
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.3 Summary of Results!The following headings indicate the significance of individual elements that increase or decrease the effectiveness of banner advertisements, and how they should be used to overcome the phenomenon of banner-blindness. Additional headings address the reliability of the subjects answers to the study questionnaire, and issues such as user goal orientation, which should also be taken in to consideration when designing banner advertisements.!
4.3.1 Advertisement Position on Website!The positioning of advertisements clearly has an impact of varying effectiveness amongst subjects, dependant on the position in relation to webpage content.!
To depict the effectiveness of advertisement positioning, the results have been used from subsection 1 and subsection 3 of the study, as there as comparable for all subjects, whereas subsection2 varied greatly dependant on what websites the subjects visited.!
Top, Centre located advertisements faired extremely well in comparison to other alternative locations. The following figures represent the percentage of subjects that viewed advertisements of a specific location, on different webpage.!
i.e. Bottom, Left: 20, 40 - Two websites had advertisements positioned Bottom, Left, which
were viewed 20% of the time on 1 of the websites, and 40% of the time on the other.
Subsection 1!
• Top, Centre: 80, 100, 40, 100!
• Top, Left: 33!
• Top, Right: 0!
• Right Side: 40, 40, 0!
The Top, Centre location was used more frequently by websites indicating it may be more effective, results also indicate the effectiveness, as it was the only location where subjects viewed the advertisements 100% of the time, on more than 1 occasion. Top, Left / Right faired poorly, however this positioning only occurred once, limiting its reliability. The right side is reliable with 3 different occasions of appearance, which consistently scored 40% and lower.!
�59
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Subsection 3!
• Top, Centre: 60, 40!
• Top, Right: 40!
• Middle, Centre: 80, 100!
• Middle Right: 60, 60, 40!
The Middle, Centre location was favoured for subsection 3, where subjects viewed static images of websites. However subjects were also asked to recall advertisements from this subsection, the highest recall rate was again found for the advertisement located Middle, Centre, however another advertisement in the same location could not be recalled at all, even though it was viewed by 100% of subjects.!
Further studies should be completed to determine whether the position of middle, centre is effective, as other factors may have effected these 2 results.!
Top, Centre unlike subsection 1, faired poor in comparison, and poses similar effectiveness as the middle, right location for these website images. This particular section of the study is effective in terms of quick glances at websites, to determine what a user will be able to recall after a short period of exposure, however the subjects did not interact with the websites.!
To summarise, the Top, Centre location of a website appears to be the optimal location to place an advertisements to attract a users attention. However if it is likely that a user will only remain on the website for a short period of time, or an introductory video with an advertisement plays prior to loading website content, the middle, centre location is the most effective (especially for recalling).!
!
�60
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.3.2 Advertisement Proximity!Advertisements with little close proximity faired well in comparison to advertisements that formed part of a larger overall section within a webpage, i.e. a navigation column (right side) or advertisements that were close to one another.!
Advertisements that were in close proximity faired poorly, shown on the Racing Post website image (left), the webpage had 5 advertisements, seen by a total of 64% of subjects reflecting an average of 3/5 advertisements seen per subject. There is very little white space, whereby the webpage is
perceived as a whole element rather than individual sections. There are slight white borders that may differentiate the sections, however the Ladbrokes and bet365 advertisements have no separation, which makes it easy to overlook these individual elements.!
A comparable example of the Amazon webpage has 2 advertisements seen by 80% of subjects. It is much easier to notice the Kindle advertisement, than the cash back advertisement (blue / black square), which may easily be overlooked as it is part of a solid block of content, all situated on the right side of the webpage. The white spacing around
the Kindle separates the advertisement from every other element on the webpage, ensuring no other element encroaches its proximity, drawing the attention of the user to it immediately.
�61
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.3.3 Advertisement Coloration!Advertisements with a solid background colour appeared to be more effective throughout the study, however this may also aid with the addition of proximity, as a solid background with no interference of other elements (text or colour to break up the area), the advertisement as a whole element, appears to be detached from other webpage content.!
The advertisement (below) is a prime example of how the text and phone image appear more prominent, as websites tend to have a white background, with prominent text in the foreground. As the advertisements information content (phone image and text) is surrounded by a white background, which will merge with the colour of the webpage, there
will be no other elements in the nearby proximity of the content, ensuring the advertisement information will be noticed, and therefore be prominent and effective.!
Although the banner style is apparent, the Vodafone advertisement (right) also proved effective in the colour mannerisms stated above, where the solid block colour with content highlighted proved effective.!
A black background or other solid colour may have a similar effect, however this study was inconclusive on that matter. Advertisements with contrasting colours to their background have been deemed ineffective, as shown on the Racing Post (below), as subjects viewed the surrounding area of the advertisement, but not the advertisement itself. !
It may be possible to suggest that if the colour of the area surrounding the advertisement content was black (instead of white), and only the advertisement content was white, the
advertisement would be more effective, and the content (product information) would stand out more, which is the sole objective of advertisements.!
�62
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.3.4 Goal Orientation of Subjects!In this particular study goal orientation was extremely limited, in terms of explorative viewing. Subsection 1 of the study primarily focused on narrow goal orientated webpage viewing, this faired poorly in terms of advertisement acknowledgement shown below.!
!The majority of advertisements have been ignored, deeming them ineffective, however the results remained unchanged during the ‘more’ explorative subsection 2 of the study, where subjects had options as to which website to visit. This is not an entirely explorative method of website viewing, yet the results remained unchanging deeming the effectiveness of advertisements unchanged, dependant on explorative orientation.!
The image (below) with the produced scan path was seen during the explorative subsection of the study, which again shows how the advertisements content was completely ignored, except for a minor glimpse which fixated on no particular information at all.!
It appears that this study in particular found no significant changes on a per website basis, that subjects view advertisements more or less often, due to their goal orientation. As described, goal orientation was very limited in this study.
�63
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
4.3.5 Questionnaire Reliability!The reliability of the answers given by subjects for the Post Recall and Recognition Questionnaire, is high.!
Click-Through Rate!
100% of subjects (ignored) did not click on any advertisements throughout the entirety of the study, which is comparable to the 80% of subjects who indicated they would not click on advertisements at home (the remaining 20% of subjects may only sometimes click on advertised links, or if they are of great interest to the subject).!
Positioning!
The positioning of advertisements did effect the change it had on the subjects i.e. the ability to recall the advertisement and its content. The significance of positioning has been addressed in chapter 4.3.1.!
The positioning of advertisements did change the effect it had on the subjects, which 100% of subjects said it would, as the ‘Top, Centre’ location for advertisements was considerably more effective than other locations. The sides of website presented the most ineffective advertisement locations, as there were ignored by the majority of subjects (60%), the top, centre location of advertisement were viewed between 80% - 100% of the time, always doubling the viewing rate.!
!
�64
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Animation!
There were very few animated advertisements throughout the study, due to constantly changing advertisements per viewing. 80% of subjects answered no, that animated advertisements are not more effective than static advertisements.!
From the study I conducted, animated advertisements seem to vary as to whether they attract attention.!
9to5mac: Some errors occurred whereby a number of screen capture replays could not be produced for this website. This website is therefore an anomaly, however from the data produced, 33% ignored the top animated advertisement!
Located Top, Centre, the animated advertisement found on the Northern Rail website was ignored by 60% of subjects, the animated advertisement on the right side was also ignored by 60% of subjects.!
For the Guardian website, the animated advertisement Top, Centre, was ignored by 80% of subjects.!
The Sky Sports website animated advertisement, Top, Centre only appeared for 40% of subjects, however it was viewed 100% of the time.!
Advertised Links (SERPs)!
Whilst subjects performed the SERPs subsection of the study, 100% of subjects viewed advertised links (surrounded by the yellow / beige box at the top of the page). This may also be due to the location of these links (top), however their viewing rate was 100%, 0% of subjects actually clicked these links.!
100% of subjects also confirmed that they do not tend to click advertised links whilst performing a generic Google search, securing the reliability of this question.
�65
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
5.0 Evaluation and Discussions!The study performed in addition to the reviewed literature of past studies, has provided a solid grounding, to aid greater understanding of why users tend to ignore banner advertisements. The designed study which was tested amongst subjects also provides modern results to aid in the cause.!
In terms of providing a solution to how banner-blindness can be overcome or reduced, valid suggestions can be deduced from the results obtained via the study, which are likely to increase the recall rates and click-through rates of advertisements, if the ‘guidelines’ or suggestions are followed.!
5.1 Achievements!I have successfully completed the project in its entirety, whilst remaining punctual with a deadline; reviewing existing literature, creating a study to be tested amongst real subjects, and organising allocated usability lab times to conduct said study tests for multiple subjects.!
Results from the study have provided a further basis of understanding, which have strengthened the claims I have made, by supplying reliable data in terms of scan paths and video playbacks of subject study sessions (with permission for the data to remain on record for a set period of time).!
I have also achieved a profound understanding of how to correctly cite existing literature, and present a valid discussion, comparing multiple points of view, from differentiating studies concerning a stated topic.!
I have achieved a number of valid alterations / suggestions, which companies or advertisement designers may take in to consideration, when creating and choosing the placement of further advertisements. From the study, these alterations have been proven to increase the effectiveness of advertisements, by reducing the banner-blindness effect (advertisements were seen by more subjects, than when these suggestions were ignored).!
!
�66
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
5.1.1 Research Findings!I have found a number of suggestions, proven to address the banner-blindness phenomenon, which directly aids in the successful completion of the aims and objectives of this project, initiated in chapter 1.!
I have found that multiple advertisement elements may work in unison to increase the effectiveness (recall and recognition rates) of advertisements, likewise the misplacement or wrong use of a particular element can jeopardise the advertisements effectiveness.!
The use of good proximity between webpage elements (some white spacing around the advertisement), and how well the advertisements content merges with the webpage; i.e. content is of a different colour to the white background colour of the advertisement, has seen an increase in advertisement recalling by subjects within the study.!
The positioning of the advertisement also suggests differentiating affects, that positively attract the subject to viewing the advertisement; top, centre, or middle of a webpage has proven to be the most effective.!
I would use this approach to begin further future research in this area, as it has proven to work well and provide valid suggestions to combat the phenomenon, a more extensive study of distinct sections may display more profound results, discussed in chapter 5.2.!
I have also found that a larger study group is essential for the production of reliable results, and the results of past studies may not coincide with the results of newer studies; the results therefore did not harmonise however study layouts or content may differ, and all results should be taken in to account (past or present).!
Additional studies will also need to be undertook to ensure resulting factors consistently hold true, and should be compared with past studies, to to determine whether past results are now falsified due to the progression of technology, and standardised changes amongst websites (WC3 - World Wide Web Consortium).!
!
�67
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
5.1.2 Design and Product!I have designed a study that helps in the identification of elements which both positively and negatively effect the recall rates of banner-advertisements, which can be visualised through the use of the gaze replay videos, and scan paths generated and placed on static images of the on-screen content subjects have visited.!
The designed study has taken aspects from past studies whereby subjects have been asked to recall advertisements from the study, this aspect was used in my study. A post study questionnaire was required to be completed by all subjects, solidifying a multitude of resulting factors, which can again be used to identify how the subjects recalled elements of the study, and therefore what advertisements (and why).!
The product is therefore a solution, or a number of valid suggestions if a solution is not present, to eradicate or at least reduce the phenomenon of banner-blindness, and its negative effect for advertisements on the average internet users.!
As this particular study has found solid evidence that specific elements of an advertisement have varying effects on an advertisements effectiveness, in connection with the post study questionnaire elf how the subjects felt about these advertisement elements, the suggestions should provide invaluable if they hold true for further additional studies.!
The statements made provide the basis for the ‘product’, as if the suggestive changes are to be made to existing advertisements, their recall and recognition rates may increase, therefore ensuring the suggestions made work in multiple situations for varying advertisements. However further studies must be considered for this to be concluded, as literature suggestions from chapter 2 did not hold true for my specific study (the goal orientation of subjects did not greatly effect the outcome), yet previous studies must be taken in to consideration.!
!
�68
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
5.1.3 Time Management!Time management has proven to be a consistent factor which I had to be aware of throughout each different section of the entire project, as a whole, however I feel as though I dedicated time efficiently, to sections of the project which required it at the time.!
The Interim Report provided vague yet targeted time management guidelines, where there was room for flexibility. Although the guidelines of specific dates may not have been followed exactly, their vagueness did provide certain time periods of which I should aim to complete a section by, before beginning a new section (this also proved valuable to determine whether I spent too much time on a certain aspect of the project).!
As a large portion of time was spent on the revisions and compilation of past research for the literature review, the basis for further chapters was already in motion, allowing swifter progression throughout the remainder of the project. Another large chapter of the project was the designing and production of a person product, in this case the creation of a study to address banner-blindness, which would hopefully provide some solutions to the phenomenon.!
If I were to redo the project, time management would remain relatively similar as I feel I had enough time to accurately research multiple topics of the project, and address themes as they arose; i.e. positioning, colour and even proximity, which I had not previously considered.
�69
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
5.2 Improvements!Room for improvement is critical in the evaluation of a study, as it would be closed-minded to assume the study performed is perfect and could not be improved / expanded upon. I am happy with the study used, which generated reliable results, however I would address minor issues if I were to do the study again, which would provide more further conclusive evidence. These improvements could only be addressed and implemented once the study had been completed prior; issues rarely arise until there has been something to test or compare against (in this case the study).!
5.2.1 Design Methodology!The design methodology for the study used many variations of study methods from previous literature researches, which appeared popular and arose multiple times. This provided a foundation whereby notable people concerned with the banner-blindness area, all used similar study techniques. I then built on this by selectively dismissing some sections of each methodology that did not concern my desired study, and including personal additions which I felt would address my desired study preferences.!
The study was an all round overview, to gain a greater understanding of all present elements of an advertisement (known and unknown) which would effect the advertisements effectiveness, unknown being elements that I had not yet considered i.e. proximity.!
If I were to complete the study again, I would create more defined subsections of the study to address specific issues of goal-orientation which could have been approached in a clearer method than I used. I would include a completely explorative subsection where subjects could explore whatever websites they wished This would make it more difficult to compare exact advertisements shown, as website would most likely differ, however it would be useful to understand how users navigated website under differentiating circumstances.!
Understanding the background to banner-blindness and having sound knowledge on the subject initially posed s delay in how I intended to manage the study. If I were to complete the study again I would use the knowledge and understanding, to accommodate more specific testing themes for banner-blindness. Creating multiple dedicated websites may prove valuable to ensure a fully controlled environment is present for the study. I would
�70
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
also delve deeper in to specific elements of advertisements such as their proximity with other items on a webpage.!
It would be useful to understand and list a set of parameters to be tested; i.e. content colour, proximity, background colour and size, whereby only 1 parameter was changed at a time. This would provide controlled experiments where results could be monitored across a large test group, if a majority of subjects agreed on a particular set of parameter alterations to provide the best recall rates, this would be the chosen solution for banner-blindness.!
!
�71
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
5.2.2 More Empirical Studies!Theory and logic has been applied to many aspects of this project such as more explorative users are likely to notice advertisements, as their focus is not limited to a niche product or item, therefore the user is more likely to engage in the entire webpage; noticing all elements even advertisements.!
This of course seems logical yet it is pure speculation and theory without factual evidence to solidify the statement. Further improvements to make include the addition of more empirical studies; direct observation and experience can be used to define logical theories, backed up with answerable data.!
The inclusion of this type of study methodology, in order to gain a greater understanding of banner-blindness may come in many forms; participating in other studies which concern this topic, observing average users in their internet browsing mannerisms and even the distribution of questionnaires for a large target audience to complete.!
If the time scale in which the project was limited to, permitted extended study periods (which I did not anticipate), I may be able to conduct the same style of study a number of time, using the same subjects. If this type of empirical study were to take place, a questionnaire would not be permitted at the end of the study, and the subjects should not be exposed to why they are participating.!
Using the same subjects, introducing a moderate period of time in-between studies, and using different websites and search pages in each study, may produce more reliable and beneficial results. The empirical data produced has greater reliability, as it has been observed a number of time, and the average resulting factors may be used, as the subjects remained the same. Only after the number of studies were completed should the questionnaire be introduced to subjects, which again could provide better statistical results, as the resulting answered could be compared against a set of studies (3 or greater), whereas currently subjects have only participated in 1 study each.!
Empirical studies would seemingly be a valid methodology to use for a large study group if an extensive period of time was allowed for the study period; in the case of this project a deadline had to be adhered to. A pre-determined time-scale had been created, which was also followed, to ensure completion of the project
�72
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
6.0 Conclusion!
6.1 Concluding Remarks!• I feel the overall project was successful in the achievement of the aims, that were initially
agreed upon between myself and the project supervisor overseeing this project.!
• Existing literature concerning past and recent studies has been evaluated and compared, to deduce solid results / ideologies, that were further strengthened or disproved in the study.!
• Logical theories and factual evidence based on study results, show why users tend to ignore banner advertisements.!
• Specific elements of banner advertisements have been addressed and compared, in their positive / negative effects subjects have towards them.!
• A successful study has been designed, which investigates varying banner advertisements, and the reaction subjects have towards them within modern websites.!
• Recall rates of advertisements have been noted, with the inclusion of what elements may have enhance the rate, to determine potential suggestions to improve advertisements.!
• A solution as such has not been provided to the phenomenon, however suggestions have been derived from the resulting factors, which will increase advertisement effectiveness.!
The achievements from this project have covered the aims and objectives, that were established prior to the projects initiation. It was truly ambitious in aiming to achieve a comprehensive solution to banner-blindness, which has effected advertisements (web based) since their introduction, first addressed as early as 1998 by Benway.!
Suggestive solutions were delivered that cover this aim, and has therefore been considered to address the issue.!
I feel as though the concluding remarks sufficiently cover the aims and objectives that I set out to achieve at the start of this project. In comparison for the aims and objectives stated in chapters 1.2 and 1.3, to the end results achieved, all have been addressed successfully and thoroughly, throughout the study.
�73
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
6.2 Future Work!Any future work should should consider the work of past and current studies, to form a foundation on which new research can be conducted. Past evidence supporting specific theories may be disproven or argued against in a comparative sense, however this will still allow for a greater overview of the banner-blindness phenomenon, covering all possible elements that may effect the situation.!
If time allowance were greater, I would act on the following, regarding future work concerned with banner-blindness:!
• Perform initial empirical studies, before the creation of any study design begins.!
• Monitor the activities of individuals under given circumstances (explorative / narrow), in an unmonitored environment to gain an in-depth understanding.!
• Spread study experiments across a greater span of time i.e. explorative study and narrow study would be separated, using the same subjects a month apart.!
• Create or use a website dedicated to banner-blindness, where it could be edited according to the criteria of specific study sections, providing greater control.!
• Using a larger sample of subjects may return more reliable trends, if the large majority of subjects tend to recall specific advertisements. This would allow for a greater evaluation of specific elements. Larger sample sizes should be used in future work.!
• A greater knowledge of scan path software should be acquired, to ensure the most effective variables i.e. scan path type (heat map / scan / greyscale) is used.!
• The study questionnaire that subjects would complete once they have participated in the study would be changed; sentencing changes would ensure there is no mis-communication as to the question intent.!
• Additional recommendations for suggestive solutions may be proposed, if further evaluation of the gaze replays produced form the study, took place.!
• The inclusion of results concerning audio responses, in addition to facial expressions may provide valuable information, as to how advertisements are perceived by subjects. I would intend to cross-evaluate the gaze replays of subjects (to note when a subject is viewing a specific advertisement), with their facial expressions.
�74
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
References![1]! Heinz, S. & Hug, M. & Nugaeva, C. & Opwis, K. (2013) Online ad banners: the effects of goal orientation and content congruence on memory[Online] Available from: http://dl.acm.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/citation.cfm?id=2468356.2468692&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=252779063&CFTOKEN=29838267[Accessed 15 November 2013]!
[2]! Bayles, M.E. (2002) Designing online banner advertisements: should we animate? [Online] Available from: http://dl.acm.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/citation.cfm?id=503376.503441&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=252779063&CFTOKEN=29838267[Accessed 15 November 2013]!
[3]! Heinz, S. & Mekler, E. (2012) The influence of banner placement and navigation style on the recognition of advertisement banners[Online] Available from: http://dl.acm.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/citation.cfm?id=2399016.2399156&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=252779063&CFTOKEN=29838267[Accessed 25 October 2013]!
[4]! Kim, K.J. & Kim, S.Y. & Sundar, S.S. & Pobil, A.P. (Date not present) The More the Better? Effects of Ad Exposure Frequency on Online Consumers with Varying Product Knowledge [Online] Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6269233&queryText%3Dbanner+advertising[Accessed 16 November 2013]!
[5]! Tullis, T. & Siegel, M. (2013) Does ad blindness on the web vary by age and gender? [Online] Available from: http://dl.acm.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/citation.cfm?id=2468356.2468685&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=254977131&CFTOKEN=48877564[Accessed 17 November 2013]!
[6]! Burke, M. & Gorman, N. & Nilsen, E. & Hornof, A. (2004) Banner Ads Hinder Visual Search and Are Forgotten [Online] Available from: http://dl.acm.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/citation.cfm?id=985921.986008&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=373320261&CFTOKEN=65772148[Accessed 17 November 2013]!
�75
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
[7]! Burke, M. & Hornof, A. & Nilsen, E. & Gorman, N. (2005) High-Cost Banner Blindness: Ads Increase Perceived Workload, Hinder Visual Search, and Are Forgotten [Online] Available from: http://dl.acm.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/citation.cfm?id=1121112.1121116&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=373320261&CFTOKEN=65772148[Accessed 17 November 2013]!
[8]! Wong, C.Y. (2001) Is Banner Ads Totally Blind For Us?[Online] Available from: http://dl.acm.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/citation.cfm?id=634067.634297&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=373320261&CFTOKEN=65772148[Accessed 25 October 2013]!
[9]! Phillips, A.H. & Yang, R. & Djamasbi, S. (2013) Do Ads Matter? An Exploration of Web Search Behaviour, Visual Hierarchy, and Search Engine Results Pages[Online] Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy.mmu.ac.uk/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6480027&queryText%3Dusers+ignore+online+ad[Accessed 25 October 2013]!
[10]! Benway, J.P. & Lane, D.M. (1998) Banner Blindness: Web Searchers Often Miss “Obvious” Links. [Online] Available from: http://www.internettg.org/newsletter/dec98/banner_blindness.html.[Accessed 30 September 2013].!
[11]! Wikipedia. (2013) Click-Through Rate [Online] Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click-through_rate[This page was last modified on 10 November 2013 at 21:15.]!
[12]! IAB / PWC. (2013) IAB internet advertising revenue report2013 first six months' results October 2013 [Online] Available from: http://www.iab.net/media/file/IAB_Internet_Advertising_Revenue_Report_HY_2013.pdf[Accessed 15 November 2013]!
[13]! Gartner. (2013) Gartner Says Smartphone Sales Grew 46.5 Percent in Second Quarter of 2013 and Exceeded Feature Phone Sales for First Time [Online] Available from: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2573415[Accessed 14 November 2013]!
�76
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
[14]! Muminova, O. (2013) Digital Media Trends Blog [Online] Available from:http://www.theguardian.com/advertising/digital-media-trends-mobile-majority[Accessed 25 October 2013]!
[15]! Benway, J.P. & Lane, D.M. (1999) Banner blindness: What searching users notice and do not notice on the World Wide Web [Online] Available from: http://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/19353/9928505.PDF?sequence=1[Accessed 17 November 2013]!
[16]! Sullivan, L. (2013) Banner Blindness: 60% Can't Remember The Last Display Ad They Saw [Online] Available from: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/196071/banner-blindness-60-cant-remember-the-last-disp.html#ixzz2gUz8fxQq[Accessed 19 November 2013]!
[17]! Pagendarm, S. & Schaumburg, H. (2001) Why Are Users Banner-Blind? The Impact of Navigation Style on the Perception of Web Banners[Online] Available from: http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/view/36/38[Accessed 20 January 2014]!
[18]! Faraday, P (Date not present) Visually Critiquing Web Pages[Online] Available from: http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/cmiller/faraday/Faraday.htm[Accessed 04 February 2014]!
[19] ! Manchester Metropolitan University SCMDT Usability Lab [Online] Available from: http://www.scmdt.mmu.ac.uk/business_services/usability_lab/[Accessed 19 February 2014]!
[20]! Gestalt Principles[Online] Available from: http://graphicdesign.spokanefalls.edu/tutorials/process/gestaltprinciples/gestaltprinc.htm[Accessed 06 March 2014]
�77
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Appendices
�78
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Appendix A - Terms of Reference!!!Banner-blindness in on-line
Advertising!
Project Background!
What is the Project!The title of the project is ‘Banner-blindness in on-line advertising’. This refers to the widely known term (especially amongst advertisers) that internet users tend to ignore, or avoid, banner-styled advertisements. However ‘banner’ often refers to an element that is meant to stand out from other items on a webpage.!
The term has also been called ‘Ad-blindness’ or ‘Banner noise’, however ‘Banner blindness was coined by Benway and Lane during website usability tests. These tests disproved that the larger, flashier ‘in-your-face’ advertisements were more effective. So much so that users would scroll past a blatant ad-styled section of a website, even if it clearly displayed the information they were looking for. The placement of such ads also had little effect.!
Importance of the Project!The relevance of Banner-blindness is great to the on-line world, knowledge surrounding users interaction with websites and their advertisement methods would not be apparent, without such studies from Benway and Lane dated 1998.!
Website developers can now understand effective ways to direct users to important information located within their websites, without using flashy banners (which don’t work). Also ad-based promotions and revenue are more prominent due to the changes made in advertisement methods.!
�79
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Aim!I aim to conduct valid and relevant research, to effectively achieve a greater understanding of Banner-blindness, and what course of action web-designers, and advertisers could take to correct any issues.!
Objectives!• I will initially gather relevant research surrounding the topic of the project, both recent
and past.!
• Research will then be filtered, ensuring only the most valuable information remains.!
• I will then gather a number of subjects, and use eye-monitoring software to detect the effectiveness of banner-ads (does the subject look at the advertisements).!
• Using the collected data from the subject testing, I will be able to determine whether the current banner-advertisements of websites are effective.!
• I will then base my final decision off the data I collected, and compare it with past data.!
Resources!To complete the given project, the resources I will need are as follows:!
• Computer with reliable Internet access.!
• Valid selection of written / e-format research, based on the Banner-blindness topic.!
• Software for report writing: Pages for Mac / Microsoft Word.!
• Software for project design / development.!
• Eye-detection software to monitor where the user is looking on-screen.!
!
�80
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Timetable and Deliverables!
Start of Project!(23/09/2013): Begin research and draft for Terms of Reference!
• Complete the first Terms of Reference Draft.!
• Begin further research of the project.!
• Make amendments to the Terms of Reference for submission.!
(18/10/2013): Terms of Reference Due!
• Begin the design stage of the product. (1.5 - 2 months will be spent on design)!
• Create storyboards designs of the Prototype to show the interface.!
• Multiple revisions of storyboards will be created.!
(22/11/2013): Literature Review Due!
• Finish design of the prototype.!
• Start development of the product.!
(20/12/2013): Interim Report!
• Continuation of the product development. (1.5 - 2 months will be spent on development)!
(28/02/2014): Report Structure Due!
• Complete full draft of Project Report.!
• Review prototype progress.!
• Obtain feedback, and act upon this (make changes to the product).!
• Completed prototype Product with any finalised amendments.!
• Make final amendments to the Project Report for submission!
(31/03/2014): Project Report and Product!
(02/05/2013): Project presentation!�81
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Key References (Harvard Format)!Benway, J.P. & Lane, D.M. (1998) Banner Blindness: Web Searchers Often Miss “Obvious” Links. [Online] Available from: http://www.internettg.org/newsletter/dec98/banner_blindness.html.[Accessed: 30th September 2013].
Nielsen, J. (2007) Banner Blindness: Old and New Findings.[Online] Available from: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/banner-blindness-old-and-new-findings/.[Accessed: 30th September 2013].!
Adotas. (2013) Infolinks Consumer Survey Shows Banner Blindness Major Concern.[Online] Available from: http://www.adotas.com/iframe/?i=48183#.[Accessed 01st October 2013].
Sullivan, L. (2013) Banner Blindness: 60% Can't Remember The Last Display Ad They Saw. [Online] Available from: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/196071/banner-blindness-60-cant-remember-the-last-disp.html#ixzz2gUz8fxQq.[Accessed: 01st October 2013].
�82
Signature of Supervisor: __________________________________!
Date: __________________________________
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Appendix B - Ethics Check Form!!!Ethics Check Form!!This checklist must be completed for every project. It is used to identify whether there are any ethical issues associated with your project and if a full application for ethics approval is required. If a full application is required, you will need to complete the ‘Application for Ethical Approval’ form and submit it to the relevant Faculty Academic Ethics Committee, or, if your research falls within the NHS, you will need to obtain the required application form from the National Research Ethics Service available at www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/ and submit it to a local NHS REC.!
!Before completing this form, please refer to the University’s Academic Ethical Framework (www.rdu.mmu.ac.uk/ethics/mmuframework) and the University’s Guidelines on Good Research Practice (www.rdu.mmu.ac.uk/rdegrees/goodpractice.doc).!
!Project and Applicant Details!
!
Name of applicant (Principal Investigator): Darran MottersheadTelephone Number: 0161 429 8414Email address: [email protected]: Undergraduate StudentDepartment/School/Other Unit: Computing and Digital TechnologyProgramme of study (if applicable): ComputingName of supervisor (if applicable): Yanlong ZhangProject Title: Banner-blindness in on-line advertisingDoes the project require NHS Trust approval?!
If yes, has approval been granted by the Trust? Attach copy of letter of approval.
No
�83
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Ethics Checklist (Please answer each question by ticking the appropriate box)!
Yes No N/AWill the study involve recruitment of patients or staff through the NHS, or involve NHS resources?!
If yes, you may need full ethical approval from the NHS.
✔
Does the study involve participants who are particularly vulnerable or unable to give informed consent (e.g. children, people with learning disabilities, your own students)?
✔
Will the study require the co-operation of a gatekeeper for initial access to the groups or individuals to be recruited (e.g. students at school, members of self-help group, nursing home residents)?
✔
Will the study involve the use of participants’ images or sensitive data (e.g. participants personal details stored electronically, image capture techniques)?
✔
Will the study involve discussion of sensitive topics (e.g. sexual activity, drug use)?
✔
Could the study induce psychological stress or anxiety or cause harm or negative consequences beyond the risks encountered in normal life?
✔
Will blood or tissue samples be obtained from participants? ✔Are drugs, placebos or other substances (e.g. food substances, vitamins) to be administered to the study participants or will the study involve invasive, intrusive or potentially harmful procedures of any kind?
✔
Is pain or more than mild discomfort likely to result from the study? ✔Will the study involve prolonged or repetitive testing? ✔Will it be necessary for participants to take part in the study without their knowledge and informed consent at the time (e.g. covert observation of people in non-public places)?
✔
Will financial inducements (other than reasonable expenses and compensation for time) be offered to participants?
✔
Is there any possible risk to the researcher (e.g. working alone with participants, interviewing in secluded or dangerous places)?
✔
Has appropriate assessment of risk been undertaken in relation to this project?
✔
Does any relationship exist between the researcher(s) and the participant(s), other than that required by the activities associated with the project (e.g., fellow students, staff, etc)?
✔
Faculty specific question, e.g., will the study sample group exceed the minimum effective size?
✔
�84
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
If you have ticked ‘no’ or ’n/a’ to all questions, attach the completed and signed form to your project approval form, or equivalent. Undergraduate and taught higher degree students should retain a copy of the form and submit it with their research report or dissertation (bound in at the end). MPhil/PhD, and other higher degree by research, students should submit a copy to the Faculty Research Degrees Sub-Committee with their application for registration (RD1) and forward a copy to their Faculty Academic Ethics Committee. Members of staff should send a copy to their Faculty Academic Ethics Committee before commencement of the project.!
If you have ticked ‘yes’ to any of the questions, please describe the ethical issues raised on a separate page. You will need to submit your plans for addressing the ethical issues raised by your proposal using the ‘Application for Ethical Approval’ form which should be submitted to the relevant Faculty Academic Ethics Committee. This can be obtained from the University website (http://www.rdu.mmu.ac.uk/ethics/index.php).!
If you answered ‘yes’ to question 1, you may also need to submit an application to the appropriate external health authority ethics committee, via the National Research Ethics Service (NRES), found at http://www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/, and send a copy to the Faculty Academic Ethics Committee for their records.!
Please note that it is your responsibility to follow the University’s Guidelines on Good Research Practice and any relevant academic or professional guidelines in the conduct of your study. This includes providing appropriate information sheets and consent forms, and ensuring confidentiality in the storage and use of data. Any significant change in the question, design or conduct over the course of the research should be notified to the relevant committee (either Faculty Academic Ethics Committee of Local Research Ethics Committee if an NHS-related project) and may require a new application for ethics approval.!
!!
�85
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Approval for the above named proposal is granted !
!Approval for the above named proposal is not granted!
!
I confirm that there are no ethical issues requiring further consideration. (Any subsequent changes to the !
nature of the project will require a review of the ethical consideration(s).)!
Signature of Supervisor (for students), or Manager (for staff): __________________________________ ! !
Date: _____________
I confirm that there are ethical issues requiring further consideration and will refer the project proposal to the!
Faculty Academic Ethics Committee.!
Signature of Supervisor (for students), or Manager (for staff): ____________________________________! !
Date: _____________
�86
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Appendix C - Interim Report!!!Interim Report!
Introduction (Aims and Objectives)!Once I evaluated the title of the project, I initially aimed to find a solution for businesses or website owners to help reduce banner blindness, and increase the recall and recognition rates of their advertisements, effectively increase the click-through rate (CTR).!
My objectives included obtaining valid research on a number of different possible deviations for banner advertisements. These deviations may or may not help to increase the awareness of the advertisements. This research included positioning, animation and quantity of advertisements.!
I also wanted to understand how a user’s intentions may effect their recognition of advertisements, such as what they intended to do whilst on a specific website (goal-orientated or explorative browsing).!
After conclusive results had been obtained, I would then perform my own research with a small group of students. This research would take place in the usability lab, where students would participate in a study, their eye-movement would be tracked, and evaluated afterwards using heat-maps.!
The study that I created would be used in conjunction with valid research from journals gathered from ACM and IEEE. The research gained from my study will ideally be collated into some form of chart or table, for visual clarification on my findings.!
Revisions: Determine what is the least effective design element of an advertisement, and attempt to explain the advantages that could be expected, if this element is removed.!
!
�87
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Achievements (Towards Aims and Objectives)!In order to gather my own research I first created a test plan that incorporated website navigation, generic google searches, and the viewing of static website screenshots. Combined, these three elements would allow me to gain a better understanding of banner-blindness in a real life situation.!
Once I had completed the first draft of the test plan, I personally tested the plan using the eye-tracking software, to produce a scan path and heat map of the experiment.!
The test plan was then revised two more times using a volunteer, who had never before experienced the eye-tracking software and test plan. After revisions were made, the test plan was finalised. I then set up reservations for a time slot in the usability slot, to put the test-plan to action, using real subjects.!
On the 9th December 2013 the first set of subjects completed the study, another session will be allocated in order to obtain a reliable amount of data. The scan paths and heat maps will be sent to myself in the near future, for further evaluation.!
Along with the data produced from the eye-tracking software, the questionnaires that subjects completed will also be retained, in order to further strengthen any claims which I am to make.!
!
�88
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Issues and Challenges!It was a challenge trying to gather volunteer subjects to complete the study (the right sample size had to be chosen, an extensive study was not necessary due to existing research, but there had to be a reliable number of participants to complete my study), and then again to book the usability lab for a set period of time when subjects were available.!
Once all data had been collated from the study, the scan paths and heat maps then had to be produced from still screens, in order to visually show where a user’s gaze travelled on-screen. It took stages of elimination in order to choose specific stills, which showed the informational data that I was looking for.!
I also had to use Excel/Numbers to produce charts of data produced from the subjects questionnaires, which sometimes included follow-ups, as answers were sometimes misinterpreted or incomplete.!
The right interpretation of trends throughout scan paths had to be selected, as it was very easy to misinterpret sections of data, or attempt to ignore a small amount of contradicting data.!
Timetable (Remainder of Project)!9/12/13 - 13/12/13: Conduct individual studies with small number of subjects.!
16/12/13 - 20/12/13: Conduct final individual studies with final number of subjects.!
23/12/13 - 27/12/13: Create scan paths via the captured eye-tracking video, attempt to identify common trends for multiple users. Determine how these trends are similar to existing research (to they support or contradict).!
(I am yet to evaluate the research that I have conducted, therefore it may be a possibility that
further research will be needed).
27/12/13 - 13/01/14: Write up literature review, using existing work, and the common trends I have found from my research.!
13/01/14 - 20/01/14: Many any amendments to the literature review complete draft.
�89
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Appendix D - Project Study (Final Design)!!!Task Briefing!
The purpose of the study!The study will assist myself (Darran Mottershead, 11033545) in obtaining practical and reliable data, to contribute to the project ‘Banner-blindness in on-line advertising’. The results from multiple tested person(s) will provide statistics for the dubbed phenomenon ‘Banner-blindness’.!
The Briefing!Please relax and make yourself comfortable. The study will take approximately 20 minutes.!
After reading this form and consenting to participate in the study, you will need to calibrate the eye-tracking software.!
You will be asked to sit comfortably in front of the computer, and follow the red dot around the screen, using only eye movement, keeping your head as still as possible. This will allow us to track what you look at on the screen in front of you.!
Once the eye-tracking calibration is complete, you will then move onto the required study tasks. All of the required tasks can be found on the other side of this page, you will be required to view some images, and use an internet browser.!
Instructional pages will guide you through each section of the study.
�90
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Required Tasks!
Section 1 - Listed Websites!You will be shown the websites listed below, please browse the websites as you would do in your own home. Each website will be shown for 1 minute.!
You may click links found within the website, however please remain on the said website.!
• http://www.theguardian.com/uk!
• http://www.skysports.com/!
• http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/!
• http://9to5mac.com/!
• http://www.tvguide.co.uk/!
Section 2 - Search!You will be shown google searches for the topics listed below, you may visit any websites found from the search. Topics will automatically change after 1 minute, where you will be re-directed back to a google search. Please do not perform your own searches.!
• Technology!
• Furniture!
• Hotels!
• Mobile Phones!
Section 3 - Static Images!You will be shown a number of website images in quick succession, lasting 15 seconds each. You should view the images for the entire duration that they appear on screen. You may be asked questions about the images.!
• Ebay!
• BBC News!
• Youtube!
• Amazon!
• TheVerge!
• Racing Post!
�91
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Banner-blindness in on-line advertising!
*Project (SA.08)
Statement of Consent!
The purpose of the study!The study will assist myself (Darran Mottershead, 11033545) in obtaining practical and reliable data, to contribute to the project ‘Banner-blindness in on-line advertising’. The results from multiple tested person(s) will provide statistics for the dubbed phenomenon ‘Banner-blindness’.!
The Procedure!• The study will take approximately 20 minutes.!
• Participants will be familiarised with the details of the study, and will be briefed on required tasks for completion.!
• Participants will calibrate the eye-tracking software, which is recorded along with audio and video. This will indicate areas of interest on websites or images shown on-screen.!
• Participants will complete the required tasks, and complete a small questionnaire based on the study they have just completed.!
Statement of Confidentiality!Information obtained from the session you are about to take part in will be kept confidential. The data from the session, including audio and video, may be saved for the entirety of the Project, to be used by the Project Candidate.!
Data will not be kept for longer than necessary, and your name will not be included.!
Your participation is voluntary, you are not obliged to participate in this project in any way, you may withdraw from participating at any time.!
Contact for further information!For any further questions about the study you may contact:!
(Project Candidate) Darran Mottershead <[email protected]>!
For any complaints or personal enquiries, you should contact:!
(Project Supervisor) Dr Yanlong Zhang <[email protected]>!
!
�92
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
You may keep a copy of this form for your personal reference.!
The details of this study were explained by Darran Mottershead.!
Date:_______________________!
I have read the Statement of Consent. I agree with the terms, and hereby give my consent to participate in the study.!
Participant Signature:__________________________________________________!
Participant Name (print):________________________________________________!
Date:_______________________
�93
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
Questions!The following questions are in relation to the images you have just been shown, I would like you to answer the questions truthfully, and in a timely manner.!
If you are unable to answer any of the questions, please move on to the next question.!
Please use a circle to indicate your answer for multiple choice questions.!
Image Questions!1. Do you remember any of the advertisements shown from any of the 6 screenshots?
Yes / No!
2. What was the first advertisement that comes to mind (if any)? _____________________________________________________________________!
3. Please list all of the advertisements you can remember._____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________!
General Questions!4. Would you usually click on advertisements at home, or ignore them?
Click Them / Ignore Them!
5. Do you feel the position of an advertisement can change the effect it has on a user? Yes / No!
6. Do you feel an animated advertisement is more effective than a static advertisement? Yes / No!
7. Whilst performing a generic Google search, do you tend to click the advertised links (advertised links are surrounded by a yellow / beige box)? Yes / No / Sometimes!
Additional Comments: _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________!
_____________________________________________________________________!
Thank you for answering this short questionnaire on advertisements, and contributing to the research for the project ‘Banner-blindness in on-line advertising’.
�94
Project (6G6Z1001_1314_9Z6)
�95
Questionnaire!!
!Please do not turn over until directed to do so.