The Next Generation of Atlas User Interfaces: A User Study with “Digital Natives”

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

Atlases are one of the most complex geovisualization environments as they are very information-rich. Within these environments, a well-designed user interface is essential to explore the variety of atlas maps and media. Involving technology-affine digital natives in the interface design process seems self-evident to provide appealing and intuitively usable atlases in the future. In our study, we presented secondary school students (n = 110, age 14–15 years) with five graphical user interface (GUI) mock-ups varying in layout density and tool arrangement. Each alternative design embodies a GUI concept inspired by an existing Web atlas or a popular website. The students have completed five tasks in these atlas interfaces that represent typical use cases for thematic navigation, spatial orientation and information queries. We collected performance and preference metrics for each layout, i.e., the time to solve a task (efficiency), whether students found the correct answers (effectiveness), and their ratings of each layout for “attractiveness”. To complete the analysis, we also conducted a mouse click analysis. Results indicate that atlas interfaces with a medium layout density are strongly preferred by the tested participants, and through inferential statistics, by digital natives in general. These medium density layouts also perform significantly better; i.e., they have lower average times, lower number of clicks and a higher percentage of successfully completed tasks. Based on the interpretation of the results of this study, general and practical guidelines for future atlas user interfaces are derived.

References

  1. Balciunas A (2013) User-driven usability assessment of internet maps. In: Buchroithner MF (ed) Proceedings of the 26th international cartographic conference, DresdenGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartz B (1970) Experimental use of the search task in an analysis of type legibility in cartography. Cartogr J 7(2):103–112. doi:10.1179/caj.1970.7.2.103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett S et al (2008) The ‘digital natives’ debate: a critical review of the evidence. Br J Educ Technol 39(5):775–786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhowmick T et al (2008) Distributed usability evaluation of the Pennsylvania cancer atlas. Int J Health Geogr 7:36. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-7-36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black A (2010) Gen Y: who they are and how they learn. Educ Horiz 88(2):92–101Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright W et al (2001) Geospatial information visualization user interface issues. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 28(1):45–60. doi:10.1559/152304001782173961 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cody MJ et al (1999) Silver surfers: training and evaluating internet use among older adult learners. Commun Educ 48(4):269–286. doi:10.1080/03634529909379178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Çöltekin A (2002) An analysis of VRML-based 3D interfaces for online GISs: current limitations and solutions. Finnish J Surveying Sci 20(1/2):80–91Google Scholar
  9. Çöltekin A et al (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):5–17. doi:10.1559/152304009787340197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eastman JR (1977) Map complexity: an information approach. M.Sc. thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, ONGoogle Scholar
  11. Eppler MJ, Mengis J (2004) Side-effects of the E-society: the causes of information overload and possible countermeasures. In: Isaías P, Kommers P, McPherson M (eds) Proceedings of IADIS international conference e-society, vol II, Ávila. IADIS Press, pp 1119–1124Google Scholar
  12. Fuhrmann S, Pike W (2005) User-centered design of collaborative geovisualization tools. In: Dykes J, MacEahren AM, Kraak M-J (eds) Exploring geovisualization. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 591–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galitz WO (2007) The essential guide to user interface design: an introduction to GUI design principles and techniques, 3rd edn. Wiley, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  14. Häberling C, Hurni L (2013) The web-based “Swiss World Atlas Interactive”: first evaluation of user experiences in modern geography education. In: Buchroithner MF (ed) Proceedings of the 26th international cartographic conference, DresdenGoogle Scholar
  15. Hegarty M et al (2009) Naïve cartography: how intuitions about display configuration can hurt performance. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 44(3):171–186. doi:10.3138/carto.44.3.171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holtzblatt K et al (2009) Driving user centered design into IT organizations. In: CHI ’09 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Boston, 4–9 April 2009. ACM, New York, pp 2727–2730Google Scholar
  17. Howard DL, MacEachren AM (1996) Interface design for geographic visualization: tools for representing reliability. Cartogr Geogr Inf Syst 2(23):59–77. doi:10.1559/152304096782562109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kramers ER (2008) Interaction with maps on the internet – a user centred design approach for the atlas of Canada. Cartogr J 45(2):98–107. doi:10.1179/174327708X305094 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacEachren AM, Kraak MJ (2001) Research challenges in geovisualization. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 28(1):3–12. doi:10.1559/152304001782173970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacEachren AM et al (1997) Visualizing spatial relationships among health, environmental, and demographic statistics: interface design issues. In: Ottoson L (ed) Proceedings of the 18th international cartographic conference, Stockholm. Gävle Offset, Gävle, pp 880–887Google Scholar
  21. MacEachren AM et al (2008) Design and implementation of a model, web-based, GIS-enabled cancer atlas. Cartogr J 45(4):246–260. doi:10.1179/174327708X347755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nielsen J (1999) Designing web usability: the practice of simplicity. New Riders, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  23. Nielsen J, Budiu R (2012) Mobile usability. New Riders, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  24. Nivala AM et al (2007) Usability methods’ familiarity among map application developers. Int J Hum Comput Stud 6(9):784–795. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Dea E et al (2011) Coastal web atlas features. In: Wright DJ et al (eds) Coastal informatics: web atlas design and implementation. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 12–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olson JM (1979) Cognitive cartographic experimentation. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 16(1):34–44. doi:10.3138/R342-258H-5K6N-4351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Özerdem E et al (2013) Evaluating the suitability of Web 2.0 technologies for online atlas access interfaces. In: Buchroithner MF (ed) Proceedings of the 26th international cartographic conference, DresdenGoogle Scholar
  28. Palfrey J, Gasser U (2011) Born digital: understanding the first generation of digital natives. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Polys NF et al (2007) Effects of information layout, screen size, and field of view on user performance in information-rich virtual environments. Comput Animat Virtual Worlds 18(1):19–38. doi:10.1002/cav.159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prensky M (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants Part 1. Horizon 9(5):1–6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruff J (2002) Information overload: causes, symptoms and solutions. Harvard Graduate School of Education. http://lila.pz.harvard.edu/_upload/lib/InfoOverloadBrief.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2012
  32. Shneiderman B (1996) The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Spencer Sipple R (ed) Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on visual languages, Boulder. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 336–343Google Scholar
  33. Tamir D et al (2008) An effort and time based measure of usability. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on Software quality, international conference on software engineering, Leipzig, 10–18 May 2008. ACM, New York, pp 47–52Google Scholar
  34. Thompson P (2013) The digital natives as learners: technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Comput Educ 65:12–33. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raimund Schnürer
    • 1
  • René Sieber
    • 1
  • Arzu Çöltekin
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Cartography and Geoinformation, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations