THE IMPACT OF INTERFACE ASPECTS
ON INTERACTIVE MAP COMMUNICATION
An Evaluation Methodology
Lucia Peixe Mazieiro
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná PUCPR, Curitiba - PR, Brazil
Cláudia Robbi Sluter, Laura Sanchès Garcia
Universidade Federal do Paraná - UFPR , Curitiba – PR, Brazil
Keywords: Interactive Maps, Interface design, Interface evaluation.
Abstract: In this paper, we will present an analytical and methodological procedure to evaluate the interfaces of Inter-
active Maps. The main aims of one such evaluation is to (i) identify the essential aspects of these interfaces,
(ii) investigate their influence on the communication with users and, based on this, (iii) set directives to
guide the design of interfaces of future Interactive Maps. The process of evaluation leads to a detailed anal-
ysis of both the interface and the interaction itself. In order to do so, the process consists of the analysis of
the essential elements of the interfaces, the evaluation of these aspects in relation to the users and, finally,
the study of the results obtained. The results mainly refer to significant information on those aspects of the
interfaces which, in turn, concern the necessary resources to both the interaction itself and the functionalities
that Interactive Maps provide.
1 INTRODUCTION
Interactive Maps are cartographic products with a
special mechanism that allows users to interact with
a data base. “Interact” means, for instance, visualize
different aspects of the same phenomenon, visualize
information in different scales, choose a set of sym-
bols for visualizing a certain area through different
points of view and, finally, pan the map (Robbi,
2000). In other words, Interactive Maps (IM) are
map-generating computational environments which
enable users to interact both with the computational
interface and with the map interface. This way, one
can say that these interfaces allow communication
processes to take place between users and map.
However, each individual interface has its own set of
features linked to the communication between IM
and users. While the computational interface fea-
tures show users how to interact with the IM, the
map interface features concern the actual use of the
maps, which must meet the users’ needs.
By introducing computational technology into
Cartography, one expected to see differences in
terms of the display of spatial information in maps
because of, for example, the possibility of using new
resources for map design and development. Never-
theless, many interactive environments merely
present printed maps converted into digital format,
not differentiating between IM and maps produced
by traditional Cartography and not taking advantage
of the benefits brought by computer resources.
According to MacEachren et al. (2001), maps
designed to display characteristics and spatial phe-
nomena still constitute a basic problem in Cartogra-
phy. Nonetheless, by introducing interactive re-
sources into Cartography, the focus shifts to prob-
lems in the field of Human-Computer Interaction
(HCI). This way, within HCI users are taken into
account from the very first analysis of the basic re-
quirements for the development of a given computa-
tional system project to the usability evaluation of
the final product (the computational system). In ad-
dition to HCI, another area that lends insight to the
study of the difficulties and benefits of the interac-
tion between IM and users is Cognitive Psychology.
Cognitive Psychology examines the users’ cognitive
processes during the interaction, including their at-
105
Peixe Maziero L., Robbi Sluter C. and Garcia L. (2009).
THE IMPACT OF INTERFACE ASPECTS ON INTERACTIVE MAP COMMUNICATION - An Evaluation Methodology.
In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Human-Computer Interaction, pages 105-112
DOI: 10.5220/0002004601050112
Copyright
c
SciTePress
tention, perception and memory when using the
computational interface (Preece et al. 2002).
The problem we attempted to solve through our
research lies in the definition of a methodology ca-
pable of identifying aspects which, in turn, enable
communication in IM. Furthermore, finding out
more about the influence of these aspects on com-
munication also constituted an objective. In other
words, we believe that by identifying the essential
aspects within these interfaces and by analyzing
their impact on user interaction, one can isolate the
significant, necessary aspects responsible for enabl-
ing interaction – which in turn concern not only inte-
ractivity itself, but also other functionalities pro-
vided by Interactive Maps. The analysis of the re-
sults of this evaluation process revealed the reasons
why certain aspects facilitate or hinder communica-
tion during the user-map interaction. Therefore, in
the present paper we will describe our methodologi-
cal journey of interface evaluation, which consists of
the analysis of the essential aspects of these interfac-
es, the evaluation of these aspects taking the users
into account, and the study of the results obtained.
The analytical and methodological path we pro-
posed for assessing interfaces of IM environments
shall lead to a full appraisal of the existing IM inter-
faces, indicating their essential elements, as well as
the influence these elements exert on the user-
Interactive Map interaction process. The main prac-
tical application of our research is the subsequent
definition of a particular design standard which, in
turn, assures the effective representation of the es-
sential map elements, hence leading to an improved
way of acquiring knowledge through future Interac-
tive Map interfaces.
2 INTERACTIVE MAPPING
Thanks to the Internet, availability and integration of
maps in interactive environments have recently
soared. In these environments, users can access
maps and interact with them by means of the inter-
faces. The maps available on the Internet can be
divided into two categories according to their objec-
tive, namely Static Maps and Dynamic Maps
(Kraak, 2000). Based upon DiBiase’s (1990) carto-
graphic visualization concept, cartographic applica-
tions may or may not enable users to access geo-
graphic data. Applications which do not enable this
kind of access are targeted to cartographic commu-
nication only, i.e. the display of already known in-
formation. The applications which enable users to
access geographic data, on the other hand, allow
users to study the displayed information for research
purposes, hence making it possible for users to ac-
quire new knowledge about the map. In order to do
so, the architecture of these applications consists of a
series of media, and may additionally rely on geo-
graphic databases.
Internet interactive mapping has granted users
many benefits, such as the easy access to cartograph-
ic information. Indeed, one of the main benefits of
interactive technologies lies in the possibility of dis-
playing cartographic information and promoting
interaction in different ways (Preece et al., 2002).
Despite that, what one mainly expects of the interac-
tion resources of an IM is that they provide users
with the necessary information to interact both with
the computational and the map interfaces. In other
words, communication in these interfaces must be
adequate for each of the user-IM interaction mo-
ments. In this sense, the computational interface
must work as a facilitator, allowing users to gain
knowledge about the functionalities of the computa-
tional system and making their interaction with the
map easier. Similarly, the cartographic language
must also work as a facilitator, helping users to build
their spatial knowledge through the map.
Millions of people access geographic informa-
tion on the web on a daily basis, be it to check the
weather forecast or choose the best way to a particu-
lar destination. What most of these people do not
know is that, underneath the interface, what they are
actually using is a System of Geographic Informa-
tion (Harder, 1989). This means that in order for an
Internet-based Interactive Map to work, it makes use
of a series of technologies of interactive media,
which in turn consists of a combination of different
web software. Nevertheless, users have access only
to the interfaces of the computational environments.
The instances of mapping found on the web reveal a
variety of both map display and map production
techniques. Despite that, this variety of techniques is
not applied solely to mapping; instead, they can be
applied to any web-based product of any field of
knowledge (Stevenson et al., 2000).
2.1 Computational Interface
Any interface offered to the public on the computer
screen is in fact an image made up of signs. For IM,
this image has two different spaces, namely one for
the map and one for commands and functions for IM
interaction. These two spaces are, in other words, the
map interface and the computational interface.
In general, the computational interface can be
subdivided into areas designed for the navigation
ICEIS 2009 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
106
functions, general use functions and other functions,
depending on which functionalities the IM offers.
Users interact with these perceptible interface ele-
ments, which in turn are variable in the computa-
tional interface. These variations derive from differ-
ent kinds of computational technology used to ena-
ble users to access IM through the Internet. IM can,
for example, be interactive web pages in which an
image is subdivided into a set of links that lead to
other images every time users access such links.
2.2 Map Interface
Every project of this nature must take two basic
elements of Cartography into consideration, namely
spatial localization and the attributes of the features
represented in the map (Robinson et al., 1995).
However, when a map belongs to an interactive en-
vironment, the portion of the screen it takes up also
includes the map interaction tools, such as the scale
and the panning tool. Therefore, one such project
must also include high quality interaction tools. The
size of the map elements, for instance, must vary
according to the scale chosen by the user.
As for the cartographic components themselves,
they can vary depending on the purpose of the map.
In other words, cartographers are responsible for
choosing these components, and they usually base
their decision on the target users’ needs and expecta-
tions. This is the reason why there is no consensus in
the specialized literature about which components a
map must possess. According to Dent (1999), the-
matic maps must contain a title, key, scale, mapped
regions, mapped symbols, toponymy, coordinates
and credits, as well as information on its sources and
date of publication. Despite that, a few other map
elements can vary according to the users’ familiarity
with the mapped region. The North or scale indica-
tions, for example, are optional for those users who
already know the mapped region (Slocum, 1999).
2.3 Interactive Maps: Communication
Within cartographic interactive environments, the
perceptible interface elements are those which pro-
mote communication or interaction with users. They
are representative information on the interface ele-
ments which, in turn, are essential for interaction. As
such, these elements may also be referred to as
communication components of the map interface. In
the computational interface, on the other hand, the
communication components are both the static ele-
ments of screen graphic design and the command
elements of the tasks available, through which users
interact with the map. These two types of elements
consist basically of the interaction resources and
functionalities provided by Interactive Maps.
Despite that, interfaces within Interactive Maps
may display certain features which, in turn, trigger
interpretation conflicts. This means that a given
piece of information may hinder and even prevent
users from grasping certain interface elements. For
instance, it is well known that sometimes people do
not see what is right before their eyes, or see what is
not before their eyes – or even what they cannot see
(Sternberg, 2000). Indeed, according to this author,
the illusions triggered by certain images may have
nothing to do with the users’ background or know-
ledge, but rather refer to their perception of the sta-
ble relationships between the characteristics of the
objects they see and the real world.
The users’ knowledge about objects, concepts,
relationships and process, amongst other things, has
a great impact on the cognitive process that takes
place during their interaction with the map. In fact,
memory allows people to trace several kinds of
knowledge derived from previous experiences and
use them adequately in the present (Preece et al.,
2002). This recalled knowledge is then associated to
a new piece of information and rearranged in the
brain together with new knowledge. In spite of that,
MacEachren (1995) asserts that the process of map
interaction is a complex problem of information
processing, whereby users build a series of cognitive
representations of what they see. He believes that
these representations are then questioned within a
framework of mental representations which, in turn,
offer a context or set limits within which the concep-
tual image derived from the map can be understood.
In this sense, the usefulness of the application of
computational technology to Cartography depends
greatly on the quality of the displayed information.
Even with ideal users (i.e. those who have a par-
ticular objective and know how to use the interface),
the usability and speed of the interface depend on
the effectiveness of its own communication – i.e. the
interface elements. When the computational tech-
nology is useful for the interaction, this means that
interface components of the Interactive Maps are
effective, enabling users to easily fulfill their objec-
tives within the IM. When technology is not so use-
ful, this means that the interface elements are inade-
quate, requiring a closer inspection to find out where
are why the technology is not being effective.
THE IMPACT OF INTERFACE ASPECTS ON INTERACTIVE MAP COMMUNICATION - An Evaluation
Methodology
107
3 OUR PROPOSAL
The main research hypothesis that provides the very
foundations of the present paper states that every
Interactive Map interface must contain certain essen-
tial elements in order to enable users to successfully
interact with the interface and fulfill their objectives.
These essential elements are responsible for com-
municating to users how they must proceed to inte-
ract with the information displayed in the map. The
selection button of an interface, for example, allows
users to choose whether or not the map should dis-
play certain pieces of information. When users in-
tend to make use of one such resource, they must
promptly know to proceed in order for the interac-
tion to be a successful one.
Interface evaluations are effective tools for de-
termining users’ preferences when they access an
IM, or even to find out whether they use the IM effi-
ciently (Preece et al. 2002). In this context, we de-
signed a methodological and analytical evaluation
procedure to examine the essential components of
the IM interfaces, as well as their impact both on
map use and on the computational interface. This
evaluation process resulted in a detailed analysis of
each interface and interaction steps. In summary, the
evaluation method proposed here allowed us to iden-
tify the essential aspects of the interfaces and their
effect on the communication process that takes place
during the interaction with Interactive Maps.
The literature offers a number of interface evalu-
ation models, which in turn recommend conducting
tests and questionnaires with users so as to evaluate
the interface usability in a cartographic context (Ste-
phen, 1994, MacEachren, 1998, Stevenson et al.,
2000, Hornbæk et al., 2002, Andrienko et al., 2002,
Zhu et al., 2005, Koua et al., 2006). Despite that,
there is a serious lack of evaluation methodologies,
particularly in terms of the specification of the tasks
to be carried out on user-based testing (Slocum et
al., 2001; Koua, 2005). This means that recently
only a few authors have published new methodolo-
gies for interface evaluation (Koua, 2005).
3.1 A Closer Look
Based upon the theoretical foundations provided by
Human-Computer Interaction and the interface eval-
uations reported in the bibliography studied, we de-
signed an evaluation procedure to analyze the effect
of certain interface elements on communication
within Interactive Maps. This procedure consists of
three interdependent phases, namely IM interface
analysis, evaluation of user interaction and analysis
of the evaluation results (see Figure 1).
EVALUATION OF
USER INTERACTION
ANALYSIS OF THE
EVALUATION
RESULTS
INTERFACE
ANALYSIS
Figure 1: Evaluation procedure of IM interfaces
the three phases.
During the first phase of the process we analyzed
the IM interfaces in order to obtain a full appraisal
of their available elements. This analysis allowed us
to know the interfaces and spot design differences
amongst them. After that, we studied the effect of
these design differences on the users’ cognitive
process during the interaction, and this makes up the
second phase of our procedure: the evaluation of
user interaction. By having users take tests and re-
spond to questionnaires, this evaluation enabled us
to locate, based on the elements analyzed in the pre-
vious phase, the areas where interaction problems
occur. Finally, we analyzed the information obtained
in these two first phases (phase three).
The aspects we assessed comprise the elements
and features of both map interfaces and computa-
tional interfaces with which users interacted. Identi-
fying and appraising these aspects is essential for the
design of future Interactive Maps. High quality inte-
raction means the fulfillment of the users’ objectives
efficiently and effectively.
3.2 Interface Analysis
The evaluation model consists of an investigation of
the existing Interactive Map interfaces. The aim of
the evaluation is to analyze the way in which both
the map elements and the elements of the computa-
tional interface are allocated in these interfaces. This
investigation is targeted to determining, through
these map and computational interface elements, the
aspects in which IM are different amongst them-
selves. It seems to us that these differences derive
from the lack of established design guidelines, pos-
sibly leading to usability difficulty.
The investigation itself is a thorough analysis of
those aspects of the interfaces responsible for com-
munication, as well as of their inherent characteris-
tics. Preece et al. (2002) emphasize that an investi-
gation is a process whereby the designer plays the
role of a user following a particular learning model.
ICEIS 2009 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
108
In the present research, the object of the investiga-
tion is the communication components provided by
the interfaces under analysis.
Initially, we came up with a data bank of the in-
terface aspects to be analyzed –i.e. the communica-
tion components of the map interface, together with
a set of commands and functionalities available on
the computational interface and targeted to user inte-
raction. The next step consisted of analyzing the
interfaces in question for the abovementioned ele-
ments, taking note of their presence or absence. Fi-
nally, the investigation process resulted in a tho-
rough analysis of all design features of IM interfaces
developed recently.
Within the set of elements of the computational
interface, we took into account both the interaction
elements and the map navigation functions. This set
of elements basically refers to interaction styles,
including the following tasks: filling out forms,
clicking buttons, checking check boxes, selecting
from lists, selecting from pull-down and pop-up me-
nus and clicking links. The basic navigation func-
tions we analyzed, on the other hand, comprise those
resources which allow users to display the map dif-
ferently, namely zoom in, zoom out, zoom scale,
vertically and horizontally dragging the image
(through arrows), panning in any direction, display-
ing the image in its initial scale.
As for the map interface elements, we considered
the perceptible elements responsible for communica-
tion within the map, i.e. the typical map compo-
nents. According to the literature in question, the set
of typical map elements is made up by the title, the
mapped region, the key, the sources, the North indi-
cation, the graphic scale, the numeric scale, the geo-
graphic coordinates, the toponymic elements and the
date of publication. In addition to these map inter-
face components, there are other IM elements which
can be taken into account, such as the presence of
Remote Sensing images, additional information on
map features, and a map of general localization.
3.3 Evaluation of User Interaction
By taking the aspects of the IM interfaces analyzed
in the previous phase into account, we evaluated, in
this second phase, how these elements make it easier
or more difficult for users to fulfill their objectives
with the IM. Our main usability parameter was ef-
fectiveness, since only effective IM can provide us-
ers with successful interactions.
According to Preece et al. (2002), by using tests
one can learn more about the users’ performance in
the application, whereas by making use of question-
naires and interviews one can learn more about the
users’ opinions on their performance. We rated the
effectiveness of the interfaces by analyzing to what
extent they allow users to fulfill their interaction
needs, hence enabling them to reach their objectives.
In addition to tests, we also used questionnaires to
obtain more information from users about their per-
formance while taking the tests.
One task included in the test is, for example,
identifying a map symbol by referring to the key. To
lend more insight to the test results, we asked users
to rate the level of difficulty of reading map sym-
bols, reading key symbols and, finally, associating
map symbols to key symbols. These additional piec-
es of information obtained through questionnaires
shed light on the reasons why users were able or
unable to correctly carry out the tasks – in this case,
identify map and key symbols. Therefore, the users’
remarks can be perceived as a part of the tests. How-
ever, they can only be used when a usability lab con-
taining this application is available (Preece et al.,
2002). In summary, the users’ informal remarks al-
lowed us to add more insight to our evaluation.
During this second phase of the evaluation
process, each test was designed according to the
information obtained in the previous phase, so as to
examine the impact of the interface aspects analyzed
on the interaction between user and map, and be-
tween user and computational interface. This way,
the tasks included in the tests consist of actions to be
carried out during map interaction. These actions
belong to the set of basic actions that can be carried
out on the map interface, including the identification
and categorization of map features, as well as data
comparison (Koua, 2005). Based upon this set of
basic actions (which can also be defined as concep-
tual objectives), we sketched the resulting actions of
the users’ mental processes while using the map. In
order to evaluate these actions, which in turn take
place during the actual computational interaction, we
examined the cognitive process behind the use of the
interactive functionalities.
Our intention with this evaluation model with
tests and questionnaires was to examine, at first, to
what extent the interface aspects hinder or facilitate
the use of the interface and then, with the users’ opi-
nions, how exactly the interface hinders or facilitates
the interaction. Take, for instance, a situation in
which a user could not find, in the interface, an ele-
ment mentioned in the test, but the answer to the test
question was actually in the interface and s/he simp-
ly could not find it. In this case, the remarks ob-
tained through the questionnaires help to throw light
on the real causes of the problem.
THE IMPACT OF INTERFACE ASPECTS ON INTERACTIVE MAP COMMUNICATION - An Evaluation
Methodology
109
All tasks we included in the tests were easy, sim-
ple tasks which directed users straight to map use.
Each of the tasks was designed according to the set
of basic actions that can be carried out both on the
map and on the computational interface, so as to
examine each and every element pointed out in the
first evaluation phase. Each task stated what the us-
ers were expected to do, and was followed by ques-
tions on the users’ opinion about the task itself and
their performance. This way, the tasks guided the
users through the main actions within the IM, hence
providing them with the necessary experience to
answer to the subsequent questionnaire. When a task
asks users to display a certain region and answer
questions about the location of the mapped region by
reading the cardinal points, a correct answer indi-
cates that the user was able to successfully read the
location requested. However, it could be that the
user already knew the mapped region, and therefore
did not rely on the map features to carry out the task.
In any case, not all users know all mapped regions
mentioned in the task and even the ones that do, do
not answer the questions in the same way.
We designed the general test model according to
the information obtained during the first phase of
map evaluation. The model was structured around
the previously evaluated interface aspects, the tasks
that can be carried out in relation to each of these
aspects, the presence of features surrounding each of
these evaluated aspects in the main IM interface and,
finally, the features surrounding IM interaction. In
order to evaluate the interface in terms of the
mapped region, for example, we examined all tasks
involving map visualization and map features, as
well as the identification of such features. Our hypo-
thesis was that the IM displays, already on the initial
interface, the necessary resources for spatial locali-
zation and identification of map features. When not,
these resources can then be obtained through the
interaction. This way, other aspects end up being
evaluated as well, amongst which are symbols in the
key, the IM title in relation to its use and function,
the graphic scale (and to what extent it helps users to
relate and visualize map elements), the North indica-
tion and the presence of geographic coordinates (and
their contribution to map orientation), the toponymy
(and to what extent it helps users to find and recog-
nize map features), the Remote Sensing images
(whether they work as an additional resource for
distinguishing between map elements), and the
sources and updating dates (whether the IM displays
the correct sources of the information it contains).
For the evaluation of a certain IM, we structured
the test according to its particular interactivity fea-
tures, as well as according to its application se-
quence. Once the test phase was completed, we col-
lected all the information obtained and systematized
it in spreadsheets. Next, we counted the number of
users and the number of correct answers. We attri-
buted percentages to each and every task so as to
make it easier to compare the different tasks and
different users’ profiles. Finally, we analyzed and
grouped the questionnaire remarks, hence forming
different opinion groups amongst the users.
3.4 Analysis of the Evaluation Results
The main aim of this analysis is to find out which
elements may affect interface usability and why. The
flowchart shown in Figure 2 shows the initial steps
of the analysis, namely the comparison between
pieces of information concerning the same IM. In
other words, this step consists of the comparison
between the information obtained for each interface
aspect during the first investigation phase and the
results obtained in phase two, the interaction with
users. This analysis results in a set of information on
the evaluation of each IM, making up a sort of map-
ping of its interaction pros and cons. This mapping
will work as the basis for the next analysis step.
Figure 2: Flowchart of the IM evaluation results.
Based upon traditional Cartographic theories,
which in turn define the representations of the as-
pects we evaluated in the maps, we conducted the
second analysis step. This second step comprised the
discussion of the information obtained for the differ-
ent interface aspects we evaluated. One such discus-
sion consists of a comparison amongst the different
IM mappings, as shown in Figure 3.
It was during this second analysis step that we
tried to identify the reasons why certain aspects
seem to hinder or facilitate user-map interaction.
Furthermore, we defined the structure of the eva-
luated aspects which, in turn, enable users to carry
out tasks within the IM. The information we ob-
EVALUATION
SYNTHESIS
IM MAPPING
INTERFACE
ANALYSIS
EVALUATION
OF USER
INTERACTION
INFORMATION
COMPARISON
results
information
actions
A
ICEIS 2009 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
110
tained here is essential for the development of guide-
lines for the design of future IM interfaces.
Figure 3: Flowchart of the analysis of interface aspects.
4 PROPOSAL VALIDATION
The procedure we proposed here consists of a model
of IM interface evaluation for obtaining qualitative
information on the communication aspects of these
interfaces. The concepts derived from Human-
Computer Interaction offer the foundations of the
procedure, together with the experiences involving
Interactive Map evaluations reported in the specia-
lized literature. This evaluation procedure comprises
an initial phase of IM interface analysis, a second
phase of user interaction evaluation, and a third
phase of analysis of the evaluation results.
The investigations we conducted on IM interfac-
es took into account certain development and func-
tioning features of a set of Interactive Map interfac-
es. This way, our aim was to check the communica-
bility of these IM interfaces in terms of “which are
and “where are” the communication and interaction
elements of the IM interfaces. Thanks to this initial
investigation we arrived at the design features of the
IM interfaces in question. One of these features,
analyzed through the aforementioned methodology,
was that most IM provide users with tools that allow
them to simply see the information; in other words,
in the context of cartographic visualization, they are
maps for cartographic communication. In these IM,
users cannot navigate or obtain further details about
the information displayed on the map, but rather
merely see its image. This discovery led us to the
conclusion that most Internet-designed IM are li-
mited in terms of functions and other complex oper-
ations. The results of interface analysis also point to
the similarities and differences between the different
IM interfaces evaluated. Indeed, the fact that there
are differences indicates that the design of these IM
interfaces did not follow a pattern. In other words,
the development of such environments is not guided
by specific design guidelines. Hence one can say
that designers do not know the exact purposes and
uses of Interactive Maps. In general, when users can
carry out tasks with which they are familiar, both the
cognitive process and the interface use are easier and
quicker.
The evaluations of user interaction, on the other
hand, allowed us to check to what extent users un-
derstand the interface aspects we investigated, as
well as to what extent they hinder or facilitate inte-
raction. In other words, we evaluated different as-
pects during the interface analysis phase (both the
ones common to all interfaces and the different
ones) and then examined their impact on communi-
cation during user-IM interface interaction. One ex-
ample is the evaluation of the key of symbols. Dur-
ing the second phase, users were asked to write the
meaning of the symbols used in the map, which they
did without difficulty. However, they did have diffi-
culty matching map symbols and their respective
key. This difficulty indicated that they are problems
in the use of keys of symbols in IM. To make mat-
ters worse, in another task most users were not able
to find the meaning of the map symbols even though
the IM contained a key of symbols. After this second
task users were also questioned about the difficulties
they faced reading map and key symbols. In both
tasks, they claimed that they had no difficulty at all
reading map and key symbols separately, but felt
completely unable to read them comparatively or
match them. In this case, users were able to recog-
nize and correctly read map symbols, such as road
and vegetation symbols. However, not only did they
recognize these symbols, but they also classified
them without actually referring to the key. This per-
ception characteristic can be explained by Marr’s
theory (1982), whereby recognizing and classifying
symbols is an understanding process which, in turn,
is influenced by the light intensity of the symbols, as
well as by their shapes, orientation and disconti-
nuances, amongst other things. Only after this
process of recognition will the operation of symbol
reading go through other steps of the cognitive
process. This way, the use of symbols with which
users are familiar leads to an easier and quicker
reading of the symbols.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The evaluation procedure proposed here helps to
obtain extremely valuable knowledge about several
IM MAPPING
COMPARISONS
TRADITIONAL
CARTOGRAPHIC THEORIES
GUIDING IM INTERFACE
REPRESENTATIONS
INFORMATION ON THE
ASPECTS WE EVALUATED
IM MAPPING
A
GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN
OF FUTURE IM INTERFACES
results
information
actions
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
ASPECTS WE EVALUATED
THE IMPACT OF INTERFACE ASPECTS ON INTERACTIVE MAP COMMUNICATION - An Evaluation
Methodology
111
different aspects of the IM interfaces, particularly of
the map components and the computational interface
components with which users interact. This know-
ledge, in turn, is paramount for the establishment of
design guidelines for interfaces of future Interactive
Maps. Indeed, the main purpose of such guidelines
would be to work as reliable a reference, something
IM interface designers could refer to and base their
design decisions on.
The methodology we proposed for the evaluation
of IM interfaces enabled us to identify the situations
in which the interface aspects under evaluation faci-
litate the interaction. The results of the evaluation
process indicated that most users do fulfill their ini-
tial objectives with the maps, which means that most
design decisions have a positive impact on user-
interaction and, therefore, should be adopted as
models for the development of future IM interfaces.
On the other hand, the evaluation did reveal that
there are situations in which even though users do
manage to fulfill their objectives, they have difficul-
ty carrying out the necessary tasks. This means that
the interfaces have problems, and new studies have
to be carried out in order to find out more about
them and their solutions.
In conclusion, we can say that interface aspects
cannot be evaluated solely according to the effec-
tiveness of the interaction (i.e. the fulfillment of test
tasks) because the users’ opinions lend significant
insight to the research (through the subsequent ques-
tionnaires). Only with a more comprehensive set of
information about IM interfaces can one actually
learn more about the use of Interactive Maps.
REFERENCES
Andrienko, N., Andrienko, G., Voss, H., Bernardo, F.,
Hipólito, J., Kretchmer, U., 2002. Testing the usability
of interactive maps in CommonGIS. Cartography and
Geographic Information Science, v.29, i.4, p.325.
Dent, B. D.,1999. Cartography thematic map design.
EUA, ed. McGraw-Hill.
DiBiase, D., 1990, Visualization in the earth sciences.
Earth and Mineral Sciences. Bulletin of de College of
Earth and Mineral Sciences, PSU 59(2): p. 13-18.
Harder, C., 1989. Serving Maps on the Internet: geograph-
ic information on the world wide Web. Redlands, Cal-
ifornia, Environmental Systems Research Institute,
INC.
Hornbæk K., Bederson B. B., Plaisant C., 2002. Naviga-
tion Patterns and Usability of Zoomable User Interfac-
es with and without an Overview. ACM Transactions
on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 9, No. 4, De-
cember, Pages 362–389.
Kraak, M. J., 2000. Visualizing spatial distributions. In
Longley, P., Goodchild, M., Maguire, D. M., Rhind D.
(Ed). Geographical Information Systems: Principles,
Techniques, Management, and Applications. Cam-
bridge: Geoinformation International, cap 11.
Koua E. L., 2005. Computational and visual support for
exploratory geovisualization and knowledge construc-
tion. The Netherlands, Thesis (PhD) Faculty of Geo-
graphical Sciences Utrecht University P.O.
Koua E. L., MacEachren A., Kraak M. J., 2006. Evaluat-
ing the usability of visualization methods in an explo-
ratory geovisualization environment. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science. v. 20, n.
4, April, p.425–448.
MacEachren, A., 1995. How maps works: representation,
visualization, and design. New York. Guilford Press,
513 p.
MacEachren, A., 1998. Design and evaluation of a compu-
terized mapping system interface. Pennsylvania State
University.
Maceachren, A.; Kraak, M. J. Research challenges in geo-
visualization. Cartography and Geographic Informa-
tion Science. v.28 No 1, p.3-12. 2001.
Marr, D., 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation
into the Human Representation and Processing of Vis-
ual Information. San Francisco. W. H. Freeman.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., 2002. Interaction Design:
Beyond Human- Computer Interaction. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Robbi, C. 2000. Sistema para visualização de informações
cartográficas para planejamento urbano. São José dos
Campos, 369 p. Tese (Doutorado em Computação Ap-
licada) - INPE / Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia.
Robinson, A. H, Morrison, J. L., Muehrcke, P. C. , Ki-
merling, A. J., Guptill, S. C., 1995. Elements of carto-
graphy. New York. ed. Wiley. 6th ed.
Slocum, T. A., 1999. Thematic cartography and visualiza-
tion. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 293 p.
Slocum, T. A., Blok, C., Jiang, B., Koussoulakou, A.,
Montello, D. R., Fuhrmann, S., Hedley , N. R., 2001.
Cognitive and Usability Issues in Geovisualization: a
research agenda. Cartography and Geographic Infor-
mation Science, 28, p. 61–76.
Stevenson, J., Cartwright, W., 2000. A toolbox for pub-
lishing maps on the world wide web. Cartography
(Brisbane), v.29, n.2, p.83-95, Dec.
Sternberg, R. J., 1996. Cognitive Psychology. Holt, Rine-
hart and Wiston.
Stephen E., 1994. The design and evaluation of an interac-
tive choropleth map exploration system. USA. Thesis
(PhD) Department of Geography. University of Kan-
sas. 129 p.
Zhu B., Chen H., 2005. Using 3D interfaces to facility the
spatial knowledge retrieval: a geo-referenced know-
ledge repository system. In: Decision Support Systems
40. p. 167 182.
ICEIS 2009 - International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
112