A Fusion of Multiple Focuses on a Focus+Glue+Context Map
Abstract. Focus+Glue+Context map system EMMA (Elastic Mobile Map) is composed of the areas of expanded detail (Focus), peripheral areas (Context), and areas that absorb the distortion between the Focus and the Context areas (Glue). The existing EMMA implementation has the drawback that road-network connections cannot be correctly drawn when multiple Focuses overlap. This paper proposes the following methods for nearby Focuses to naturally unite like water drops uniting by surface tension: 1) Focus Transformation method enables Focuses to transform in a squeezed manner to avoid overlapping. 2) Focus Union method enables overlapping Focuses to unite into a single Focus with a large Focus area. 3) Union Focus Transformation method enables a Union Focus to transform along a moving mouse pointer, enabling users to easily view map areas near the Union Focus. 4) Focus Division method enables Union Focuses to divide so that they can be operated as individual Focuses. Moreover, we have had subjects examine the experiment for testing the prototype system. Compared with the existing EMMA implementation, the proposed system required fewer operations and less time. According to the result of the questionnaires, the subjects could recognize road connections and follow the focused areas with their eyes more easily on the prototype system than on existing EMMA.
KeywordsFocus Area Individual Focus Multiple Focus Original Focus Nagoya Institute
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Google Maps, http://maps.google.com
- 2.Yahoo! Maps, http://map.yahoo.com
- 3.Takahashi, N.: An Elastic Map System with Cognitive Map-based Operations. In: International Perspectives on Maps and the Internet, February 12, pp. 73–87. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
- 4.Yamamoto, D., Ozeki, S., Takahashi, N.: Focus+Glue+Context: An Improved Fisheye Approach for Web Map Services. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSPATIAL GIS 2009, Seattle, Washington, pp. 101–110 (November 2009)Google Scholar
- 5.Furnas, G.W.: Generalized fisheye views. In: Proc. of the SIGCHI 1986, pp. 16–23 (1986)Google Scholar
- 6.Harrie, L., Sarjakoski, L.T., Lehto, L.: A variable-scale map for small-display cartography. In: Proc. of the Symp. on GeoSpatial Theory, Processing, and Applications, pp. 8–12 (2002)Google Scholar
- 7.Sarkar, M., Brown, M.H.: Graphical fisheye views of graphs. In: Proc. of the SIGCHI 1992, pp. 83–91 (1992)Google Scholar
- 8.Sarkar, M., Snibbe, S.S., Tversky, O.J., Reiss, S.P.: Stretching the rubber sheet: a metaphor for viewing large layouts on small screens. In: Proc. of the 6th Annual ACM Symp. on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 81–91 (1993)Google Scholar
- 9.Gutwin, C., Fedak, C.: A comparison of fisheye lenses for interactive layout tasks. In: Proc. of the Graphics Interface 2004, pp. 213–220 (2004)Google Scholar
- 10.Yamamoto, D., Ozeki, S., Takahashi, N.: Wired Fisheye Lens: A Motion-Based Improved Fisheye Interface for Mobile Web Map Services. In: Carswell, J.D., Fotheringham, A.S., McArdle, G. (eds.) W2GIS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5886, pp. 153–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
- 11.Gould, P., White, R.: Mental Maps. Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth (1997)Google Scholar