[kjames]

Pardon my ignorance, but I find your efforts quite insignificant. If you were to ask me where most people looked on that example, I could accurately tell you what got the most looks first, second, third etc, without ever seeing your heatmap. Do I really need a third party to tell me people like boobs more than Ron Paul?

I'd like to add that the length of eye contact is irrelevant especially to a metric that is more valuable, interpretation. Let's say that we can determine (or even narrow down) users interpretation of content and heatmap the relevance to their visit. If we could take a pro-active stance we could predict future visits and adjust the content accordingly, not be reactionary and simply say (after the user is gone) that people looked at boobs more than Ron Paul.

Just my two cents, sorry if I was a dick.

[potatolicious]

Did you even read the article?

The aggregate confirms what you're saying - that people will look down the middle at all the half-naked people.

But look at the individual heatmaps, it seems like a not-insignificant number of people followed more text than images, some drifted all over the place, etc etc.

That's the entire point of the post I think - pointing out that aggregates can be deceiving when the distribution is not even close to uniform.