Rendering effective route maps: improving usability through generalization
Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques
Spatial Cognition, An Interdisciplinary Approach to Representing and Processing Spatial Knowledge
Pictorial and Verbal Tools for Conveying Routes
COSIT '99 Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Information Theory: Cognitive and Computational Foundations of Geographic Information Science
The Production of Route Instructions in Underground and Urban Environments
COSIT '99 Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Information Theory: Cognitive and Computational Foundations of Geographic Information Science
Grid Patterns and Cultural Expectations in Urban Wayfinding
COSIT 2001 Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Information Theory: Foundations of Geographic Information Science
When and Why Are Visual Landmarks Used in Giving Directions?
COSIT 2001 Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Information Theory: Foundations of Geographic Information Science
A location and action-based model for route descriptions
GeoS'07 Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on GeoSpatial semantics
An analysis of direction and motion concepts in verbal descriptions of route choices
COSIT'09 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Spatial information theory
Hi-index | 0.00 |
Three experiments investigated expert and non-expert knowledge of a familiar but loosely structured spatial environment as revealed through the production of sketch maps. In the first experiment, experts and non-experts in geomatics sketched maps of a well-known park. The analysis of the maps revealed that experts and non-experts used different drawing strategies that reflected different mental representations. In the second experiment, new participants identified good and poor examples from the previous maps. Expert and non-expert evaluators agreed, indicating that experts and non-experts alike agree on what constitutes a “good map”. In the third experiment, people familiar and unfamiliar with the park were asked to remove non-essential features from a consolidated map that incorporated all the features drawn by the participants of the first experiment. Those familiar and unfamiliar with the environment retained the same features, notably, the paths in the park. Together, the research shows that experts produce superior maps to non-experts, but that people, irrespective of expertise and familiarity, concur on the features that make a map effective. Even for relatively unstructured environments like a large park, people seek structure in the configuration of paths. These findings have implications for the design of maps.