start » survey


Below are the results from the SWAET 2012 post-conference survey. The results are based on the answers from 27 of the 70 participants (39 %).

The survey consisted of 16 questions about different aspects before, during and after the workshop. Apart from one question asking how the participants learned about the workshop, they questions were all answered by scoring an impression between 5 (very good) and 1 (very poor).


The average score was 4.25 with a standard deviation of 0.42 which means that the responding participants were generally positive about the workshop. On the question about the overall impression of the workshop, 93 % of the respondents had very positive (63 %) or positive (30 %) impression whereas the rest had a mixed impression (7 %).


We are happy that so many of you enjoyed the workshop. Your opinions and comments will be invaluable when planning the next SWAET meeting!


What is your overall impression of the workshop?
62.96 %29.63 %7.41 %0 %0 %0 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • Some poor presentations had slipped through the reviewers, but overall the quality was very good.
  • I was impressed bij de kindness and the way everybody respected each other and they were interested in each other
  • Well managed and interesting subjects.
  • Very good information about the different approaches to the eye movements recording
  • Some excellent talks, although they were mixed. Perhaps more focus could be placed on the experimental design behind the studies when evaluating abstracts.
  • Very good keynotes, many good lectures, interesting discussion about the technicalities of eye tracking
  • The moderators of the sessions were of very mixed quality. Especially when it came to time keeping of the talks.
  • A wonderful & very inspiring workshop.
  • Excellent keynotes, overall good quality of presentation, excellent discussion (and feedback of one' work)


How did you first learn about SWAET 2012?
14.81 %18.52 %3.7 %0 %44.44 %18.52 %
InvitationE-mail listExhibitor websiteSWAET websiteWord of mouthOther


  • I founded the conference
  • I heard about it at LETA in Lund.
  • via my husband
  • by the Workshop organizers
  • I am a member of the Humanities Lab in Lund. I heard about it when I joined here.
  • from colleagues at work
  • In Lund when we started planning it.
  • I got the invitation, because I am on the E-mail list.
  • Kenneth Holmquist, years ago. (I attended the first SWAET)
  • Co-worker has been going for years
  • Sevaral colleagues had recommended.

What is your impression of the information about the workshop?
46.15 %50 %3.85 %0 %0 %1 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • it was clear on the website and also in the proceedings
  • Although some of the travel info was wrong, e.g. the bus number 3 (not 4 as stated) to Karolinska institute.
  • Could not have been better :-)
  • More specific information about the location of the different venues could've been sent a bit earlier

What is your impression of the workshop website?
51.85 %44.44 %3.7 %0 %0 %0 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • I was immediatly interested altough it wasn't my field of interest. I accompanied my husband
  • Would have been nice to have a pdf-file on the whole program on forehand
  • It would have been good if the information about how to use public transport to get to the event had been verified as one of the buses listed does not actually go there.
  • Easy to use, a good overview, and the structure of the program was also very good!
  • The info on the locations and the how to get there was valuable.


What is your impression of the instructions for submission?
42.86 %57.14 %0 %0 %0 %6 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • Each submission was not identical in terms of required info. Some had author affiliations, some did not; and it would be good if all abstracts came with full reference list of named articles.
  • I did not submit a paper- but I read all the information on the webpage, and it was very clear!

What is your impression of the submission procedure?
55 %35 %10 %0 %0 %7 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • Did not submit
  • Didn't submit
  • No feedback that payment was ok.


What is your impression of the methods lecture?
37.5 %31.25 %31.25 %0 %0 %11 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • arrived just to late...
  • But next time there should be an opportunity to ask questions afterwards
  • not present
  • Did not attend
  • Although it was an interesting talk, I already heard this lecture during the LETAcourse in LUND
  • Did not see it.
  • Unfortunately - I was not present at Kenneths lecture due to work in Copenhagen. But I know his lectures are never boring, but always very interesting! So it was really sad to miss the methods lecture!
  • I arrived late. :(
  • Bit dull

What is your impression of the get-together?
31.25 %56.25 %12.5 %0 %0 %11 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • did not attend
  • Could not attend.
  • sorry, I didnt attend
  • not present
  • Did not attend
  • Did not attend
  • I was not present due to work in Copenhagen - I will definitely be there next time!
  • Nice food & drinks, but the location didn't elicit a social mixing

What is your impression of the exhibits?
26.09 %73.91 %0 %0 %0 %4 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • interesting companies
  • The suppliers were very active and competitive.
  • Unfortunately didn't have much time to talk to exhibitors
  • Informative & interesting, easy to get in contact with the exhibitors!

What is your impression of the keynotes?
65.38 %26.92 %7.69 %0 %0 %1 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • I liked both very much, interesting
  • But some of the visuals could be improved.
  • I liked the first one.
  • Really very good keynote speakers!
  • Awesome! Inspiring!

What is your impression of the oral presentations?
11.11 %51.85 %37.04 %0 %0 %0 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • Mostly good speakers but again some presentations were not well visualised.
  • There were a few presentations that were not well motivated, but in general the level was very high
  • The topics were very mixed as well as the quality of the speakers.
  • some were really good, others were hard to follow
  • Some good, some bad. Important that chairs make sure that time schedule is kept
  • a lot on first day
  • Some speakers went on for way too long, they should've been interrupted earlier. Otherwise great talks.

What is your impression of the poster presentations?
28.57 %47.62 %19.05 %4.76 %0 %6 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • Saw only one that was interesting.
  • Presented a poster, so i had very little time to check them out.
  • Only that a poster session should not be kept first thing in the morning after the conference dinner evening. But I like it when poster sessions are small and the posters were of very good quality
  • I was disappointed in the posters. Not very original or interesting research in most of the cases.
  • Did not have time to see much
  • It would have been great, if even more people had presented their posters. It is always so interesting to walk around and read these posters!
  • But they were hanging only for a short time.. Maybe put them up for as long as possible, e.g. the whol conference

What is your impression of the panel discussion?
21.05 %42.11 %26.32 %10.53 %0 %8 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • It wasn't much of a panel discussion. More of a Q&A session where only a few contributed and the answers were not necessarily interesting for many in the audience who are not that much of eye tracking specialists/nerds.
  • The Panel discussion consisted mainly of questions directed to Fiona Mulvey, framed as: "are you also taking into account.........". Although I really liked the idea, I didn't feel there was much 'discussion'.
  • Had to leave early
  • Didn't attend

What is your impression of the visit to Tobii?
38.89 %44.44 %11.11 %5.56 %0 %9 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • Fascinating to see, not only the tour, but how they react to questions and other manufacturers.
  • I enjoyed seeing a Swedish company from the inside, the people were very enthousiastic, telling about Tobii, the food was good, nice meeting, mixing six groups was good for connecting.
  • Encouraging to see a Swedish company thriving in a global marketplace
  • I think it would be good if people could be given a list of topic headings in advance, and have the opportunity to prepare questions beforehand (perhaps also sent to the panel in advance too). The discussion should be chaired in such a way that all of the panel answer the questions.
  • Tour took too long (but was interesting anyway), so one had to wait for the food quite a while still. Next time it should be the other way around and the tour should be shorter.
  • Nice dinner-venue, although after the factory visit I do not think that Tobii Eyetrackers are the best ones for researchers
  • Did not attend
  • I had to work in the evening - so unfortunately I was not at the Tobii dinner.
  • Giving theire competitors a different tour.. how lame & childish!
  • The tour around Tobii was waytoo long after such a long day at the workshop, unfortunately. Bu tthe dinner was lovely.


What value did the workshop offer for your money?
55 %45 %0 %0 %0 %7 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • Although conference fee increased quite a lot compared to earlier years.
  • came by invitation
  • This is not a question that the alternatives above can answer. I think it was valuable in terms of getting the participants to network and discuss their research. Some of the talks were also interesting.
  • The workshop offers you value, that money can't buy.
  • GREAT food.

What value did the workshop offer for your time?
50 %45.83 %0 %4.17 %0 %3 of 27
Very goodGoodMixedPoorVery poorNo opinion


  • The subjects provided a comprehensive picture of todays state-of-the-art in the field of eye tracking.
  • I like that they are decent length 20min talks with enough time for proper discussion afterwards, and no parallel sessions. You can really make the most of it this way.
  • See above.
  • I could have spend twice as much time in Stockholm! This was a really great Conference!!!
  • I have a very specific field of interest, so many talks were not so interesting.
  • For me, it was good that is was in Stockholm. (near to me)

Final comments

  • I loved the positive atmosphere, I felt very welcome and I learned a lot about eye tracking
  • nice group of people (incl organizers), hopefully next time more more visitors.
  • No. Just a very interesting workshop handled professionally by all concerned.
  • Great! The organization was fantastic! Everything ran smoothly, and the venues were perfectly suited for the workshop/conference. Overall, very enjoyable (and intense) days!
  • The tour of Tobii was great, but it was a very long day, and is perhaps too much to fit in with then the meal at Tobii as well afterwards.
  • Great compliment to the organizers, I really enjoyed it!!!
  • The lunches were a bit poor. I was quite hungry and unfocused by the end of the days and found it hard to focus on the talks. There were too few trash bins around the coffee/lunch area. And a couple of tables to gather around when talking and drinking coffee to put the cups on would have been good for networking and facilitating people connecting with people they had never met before.
  • Well done! Hope SWAET will be held at KI again in the future.
  • Thanks a lot for some wonderful days in Stockholm. Looking much forward to join you any other time!
  • Stockholm = Beautiful!
  • This type of methodologically focused seminar works extremely well! Excellent job - thank you to the organizers!!!