Here's more: One of the key insights behind A/B testing is the realisation that it's only what happens with real customers that counts. It doesn't matter what

Here's more: One of the key insights behind A/B testing is the realisation that it's only what happens with real customers that counts. It doesn't matter what you like, the CEO likes, or your dog likes -- if your customers don't like your latest design/copy/whatever it doesn't count for sh*t. This is the opposite to what the artists mentioned did -- mainly relying on their own judgement before displaying a finished work to the public. The fact they were good at consistently guessing what would be appreciated (let's leave aside defining the metric of success for art) is a large part of what makes them a good artist. This is a moderately pedantic point, and shouldn't detract from what is to me the most interesting point of the article -- that we can correlate "good" art with objective measurements. A bunch of questions immediately arise: Does this result generalise beyond Mondrian's work? His work is particularly well suited to the type of experiment described. I imagine fiddling with a hyper-realistic painting in a meaningful way would be harder. Are there consistent similarities in gaze patterns between good art and bad art? Can we generate a useful predictive model of eye movements? That is, given an image can we predict where the eye will go? Does this generalise to other domains, like effective landing pages? Could eye movements be used to predict purchasing behaviour? The latter two seem like the core assumptions that EyeQuant is built on. More depth here would be good.