GeoInformatica

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 619–641 | Cite as

Controllability matters: The user experience of adaptive maps

  • Peter Kiefer
  • Ioannis Giannopoulos
  • Vasileios Athanasios Anagnostopoulos
  • Johannes Schöning
  • Martin Raubal
Article
  • 336 Downloads

Abstract

Adaptive map interfaces have the potential of increasing usability by providing more task dependent and personalized support. It is unclear, however, how map adaptation must be designed to avoid a loss of control, transparency, and predictability. This article investigates the user experience of adaptive map interfaces in the context of gaze-based activity recognition. In a Wizard of Oz experiment we study two adaptive map interfaces differing in the degree of controllability and compare them to a non-adaptive map interface. Adaptive interfaces were found to cause higher user experience and lower perceived cognitive workload than the non-adaptive interface. Among the adaptive interfaces, users clearly preferred the condition with higher controllability. Results from structured interviews reveal that participants dislike being interrupted in their spatial cognitive processes by a sudden adaptation of the map content. Our results suggest that adaptive map interfaces should provide their users with control at what time an adaptation will be performed.

Keywords

Map adaptation User experience Activity recognition Maps 

References

  1. 1.
    Abowd GD, Dey AK, Brown PJ, Davies N, Smith M, Steggles P (1999) Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness. In: Handheld and ubiquitous computing. Springer, pp 304–307Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bao L, Intille SS (2004) Activity recognition from user-annotated acceleration data. In: Pervasive computing. Springer, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barkowsky T, Freksa C (1997) Cognitive requirements on making and interpreting maps. In: Spatial Information Theory A Theoretical Basis for GIS. Springer, pp 347–361Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baus J, Krüger A, Wahlster W (2002) A resource-adaptive mobile navigation system. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, pp 15–22Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borji A, Itti L (2014) Defending yarbus: Eye movements reveal observers’ task. J Vis 14(3):29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bulling A, Ward J, Gellersen H, Tröster G, et al. (2011) Eye movement analysis for activity recognition using electrooculography. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 33(4):741–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Çöltekin A, Heil B, Garlandini S, Fabrikant SI (2009) Evaluating the effectiveness of interactive map interface designs: a case study integrating usability metrics with eye-movement analysis. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 36(1):5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dessart CE, Genaro Motti V, Vanderdonckt J (2011) Showing user interface adaptivity by animated transitions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems, pp 95–104. ACMGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duchowski A (2007) Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice, vol 373. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Findlater L, McGrenere J (2008) Impact of screen size on performance, awareness, and user satisfaction with adaptive graphical user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp 1247–1256Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischer G (1993) Shared knowledge in cooperative problem-solving systems - integrating adaptive and adaptable components. In: Schneider-Hufschmidt M, Kühme T, Malinowski U (eds) Adaptive User Interfaces. Elsevier Science Publishers, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer G, Lemke A, Schwab T (1985) Knowledge-based help systems. In: Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’85). ACM, New York, USA, pp 161–167Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gajos KZ, Czerwinski M, Tan DS, Weld DS (2006) Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces. ACM, pp 201–208Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gajos KZ, Everitt K, Tan DS, Czerwinski M, Weld DS (2008) Predictability and accuracy in adaptive user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp 1271–1274Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giannopoulos I, Kiefer P, Raubal M (2012) GeoGazemarks: Providing gaze history for the orientation on small display maps. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, ICMI ’12. doi:10.1145/2388676.2388711. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 165–172
  16. 16.
    Giannopoulos I, Kiefer P, Raubal M (2015) GazeNav: Gaze-based pedestrian navigation. In: 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI). ACM, pp 337–346Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenberg S, Witten IH (1985) Adaptive personalized interfaces - a question of viability. Behav Inform Technol 4(1):31–45Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA , Meshkati N (eds) Human Mental Workload, Advances in Psychology, vol 52, North-Holland, pp 139–183Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haunert JH, Sering L (2011) Drawing road networks with focus regions. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 17(12):2555–2562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hegarty M, Richardson AE, Montello DR, Lovelace K, Subbiah I (2002) Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence 30 (5):425–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Höök K (2000) Steps to take before intelligent user interfaces become real. Interacting with computers 12(4):409–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hui B, Partridge G, Boutilier C (2009) A probabilistic mental model for estimating disruption. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, pp 287–296Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kelley JF (1983) An empirical methodology for writing user-friendly natural language computer applications. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’83. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 193–196Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kiefer P, Giannopoulos I, Kremer D, Schlieder C, Raubal M (2014) Starting to get bored: An outdoor eye tracking study of tourists exploring a city panorama. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, ETRA ’14. doi:10.1145/2578153.2578216. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 315–318
  25. 25.
    Kiefer P, Giannopoulos I, Raubal M (2013) Using eye movements to recognize activities on cartographic maps. In: Proceedings of the 21st SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 488–491Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kiefer P, Giannopoulos I, Raubal M (2014) Where am I? Investigating map matching during self-localization with mobile eye tracking in an urban environment. Trans GIS 18(5):660–686. doi:10.1111/tgis.12067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kiefer P, Zhang Y, Bulling A (2015) The 5th international workshop on pervasive eye tracking and mobile eye-based interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication, UbiComp ’15 Adjunct. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 825–828Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kopf J, Agrawala M, Bargeron D, Salesin D, Cohen M (2010) Automatic generation of destination maps. In: ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol 29. ACM, pp 158:1–158:12Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lallé S, Toker D, Conati C, Carenini G (2015) Prediction of users’ learning curves for adaptation while using an information visualization. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, pp 357–368Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Laugwitz B, Held T, Schrepp M (2008) Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Holzinger A (ed) HCI and Usability for Education and Work, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5298. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 63–76Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liao L, Fox D, Kautz H (2007) Hierarchical conditional random fields for gps-based activity recognition. In: Robotics Research. Springer, pp 487–506Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lobo MJ, Pietriga E, Appert C (2015) An evaluation of interactive map comparison techniques. In: CHI’15 Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp 3573–3582Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Majaranta P, Räihä KJ (2002) Twenty years of eye typing: Systems and design issues. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research & Applications, ETRA ’02. doi:10.1145/507072.507076. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 15–22
  34. 34.
    May J, Gamble T (2014) Collocating interface objects: zooming into maps. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp 2085–2094Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    McGrenere J, Baecker RM, Booth KS (2007) A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 14(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meng L, Reichenbacher T (2005) Map-based mobile services. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Miniotas D, Špakov O, MacKenzie IS (2004) Eye gaze interaction with expanding targets. In: CHI’04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1255–1258Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ooms K, De Maeyer P, Fack V, Van Assche E, Witlox F (2012) Interpreting maps through the eyes of expert and novice users. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 26 (10):1773–1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pfeiffer M, Dünte T, Schneegass S, Alt F, Rohs M (2015) Cruise control for pedestrians: Controlling walking direction using electrical muscle stimulation. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’15, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 2505–2514. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702190
  40. 40.
    Qvarfordt P, Zhai S (2005) Conversing with the user based on eye-gaze patterns. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’05. doi:10.1145/1054972.1055004. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 221–230
  41. 41.
    Raubal M, Panov I (2009) A formal model for mobile map adaptation. In: Location Based Services and TeleCartography II. Springer, pp 11–34Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reichenbacher T (2001) Adaptive concepts for a mobile cartography. Glob J Geol Sci 11(1): 43–53Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reichenbacher T (2005) Adaptive egocentric maps for mobile users. In: Map-based Mobile Services. Springer, pp 141–158Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reichenbacher T, De Sabbata S (2011) Geographic relevance: different notions of geographies and relevancies. Sigspatial Special 3(2):67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rosman B, Ramamoorthy S, Mahmud M, Kohli P (2014) On user behaviour adaptation under interface change. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, pp 273–278Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rukzio E, Müller M, Hardy R (2009) Design, implementation and evaluation of a novel public display for pedestrian navigation: the rotating compass. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp 113–122Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sarjakoski LT, Nivala AM (2005) Adaptation to context - a way to improve the usability of mobile maps. In: Map-based Mobile Services. Springer, pp 107–123Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schmid F (2008) Knowledge-based wayfinding maps for small display cartography. Journal of Location Based Services 2(1):57–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schmid F, Kuntzsch C, Winter S, Kazerani A, Preisig B (2010) Situated local and global orientation in mobile you-are-here maps. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services. ACM, pp 83–92Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schmidt A (2000) Implicit human computer interaction through context. Pers Technol 4(2-3):191– 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Slocum TA (2009) Thematic cartography and geovisualization Prentice hallGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Steil J, Bulling A (2015) Discovery of everyday human activities from long-term visual behaviour using topic models. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, UbiComp ’15. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 75–85Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stuerzlinger W, Chapuis O, Phillips D, Roussel N (2006) User interface façades: towards fully adaptable user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, pp 309–318Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tseng YC, Howes A (2008) The adaptation of visual search strategy to expected information gain. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1075–1084Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wang F, Li Y, Sakamoto D, Igarashi T (2014) Hierarchical route maps for efficient navigation. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM, pp 169–178Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Xiao J, Catrambone R, Stasko J (2003) Be quiet? evaluating proactive and reactive user interface assistants. In: Proceedings of INTERACT, vol 3, pp 383–390Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yamabe T, Takahashi K (2007) Experiments in mobile user interface adaptation for walking users. In: Intelligent Pervasive Computing, 2007. IPC. The 2007 International Conference on IEEE, pp 280–284Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zhao J, Wigdor D, Balakrishnan R (2013) Trailmap: facilitating information seeking in a multi-scale digital map via implicit bookmarking. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp 3009–3018Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Cartography and Geoinformation, ETH ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Faculty 03: Mathematics / Computer ScienceUniversität BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations