## 3 Results
### Eye-Tracking Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Online Ad Technique** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Time To First** \\ **Fixation/TTFF (ms)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Average Fixation** \\ **Duration (ms)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Revisit Count** \\ **Result Time** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Dwell Time** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Fixation Count** \\ **Fixation Count** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**Right rail** & 3172.73 (3854.57) & 1888.58 (1041.12) &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3.44 \\ (2.02) \\ \end{tabular} & 6.72\% & 8.44 (4.17) \\ \hline
**Nonmodal** & 2097.50 (1719.84) & 967.54 (1903.95) &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1.15 \\ (1.20) \\ \end{tabular} & 8.83\% & 3.88 (3.22) \\ \hline
**Modal** & 410.11 (212.42) & 2681.10 (1654.44) &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1.10 \\ (1.36) \\ \end{tabular} & 53.18\% & 8.31 (4.52) \\ \hline
**Intraconent without** **content reorganization** & 1124.23 (1803.13) & 1715.71 (782.60) &
\begin{tabular}{c} 4.11 \\ (2.74) \\ \end{tabular} & 5.28\% & 8.28 (3.94) \\ \hline
**Banner** & 1427.96 (1117.80) & 1144.38 (744.93) &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1.65 \\ (1.40) \\ \end{tabular} & 20.16\% & 5.70 (3.81) \\ \hline
**Intraconent with content** **reorganization** & 566.07 (972.97) & 808.81 (501.21) &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1.28 \\ (1.09) \\ \end{tabular} & 13.82\% & 3.96 (2.52) \\ \hline
**Right rail animated** & 3247.66 (5022.15) & 456.28 (434.46) &
\begin{tabular}{c} 0.25 \\ (0.55) \\ \end{tabular} & 8.51\% & 2.40 (1.76) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Eye-tracking metrics for the tested Online Ad Techniques. TTFF, Revisit and Fixation count are average values, and the standard deviation is in parentheses. regarding the right rail advertisement was 8.44. For the nonmodal, it was 3.88; for the modal, 8.31; for the intraconent without content reorganization, 8.28; for the banner form, 5.7; for the intraconent with content reorganization, 3.96; and for the animated right rail, 2.4. Figure 2 depicts heatmaps, for all participants, for the home page and two additional pages of the website that were tested. The use of heatmaps provided a consolidated representation of gaze points and important information about user behavior on the website. On all pages, it appears that users focused their attention on certain parts of the article, which may have been due to searching for specific information they were asked to find. On the first and second page, they observed the advertisement to a lesser extent. On the next page, it appears that the advertisement was one of the parts of the article that significantly attracted the participants' attention. The specific position of the modal advertisement on the page significantly contributed to the results. As depicted, users focused their gaze on the center of the advertisement as well as on the \"X\" that terminated the advertisement. Moving on to the next two pages, participants did not particularly notice the banner advertisement as well as the intraconent with content reorganization advertisement. On the page with the intraconent without content reorganization advertisement, in contrast to the two previous advertisements, the gaze points slightly increased, perhaps due to its specific placement within the article. Users searching for the requested information passed their gaze over this particular advertisement. Finally, for the animated right rail, the depiction shows that they did not even notice it despite it being animated. In this case, it seems that the \"Banner Blindness\" phenomenon was at play. This phenomenon occurs in cases where the user is excessively exposed to advertisements and ultimately ignores them subconsciously while continuing their navigation on the page. Having reached the last article and noticing with their peripheral vision the movement and the different appearance in relation to the rest of the page's content, the user knows that there is an advertisement in that specific position and thus ignores it.