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

 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

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

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