A Comparison of Map vs. Text Directions for a Handheld Device in a Campus Setting: A Pilot Study Liz Atwater Department of Psychology George Mason University Jason Burke Institute for Systems Research University of Maryland Andrea Kirk Department of Computer Science University of Maryland December 2001

Which one is more effective? –Less time, less errors Does route complexity have an effect? Use by pedestrians instead of drivers –Lack of landmarks –No street names, etc. Map vs. Text Directions

Context-aware, location-aware –Location awareness via GPS, RF, IR, etc. Provides information depending on: –User profile –Device profile –Location –Context Useful in many domains –Tourism –Commerce Rover

Williams studies (1999) – pilots finding nearest airport using maps or text –Maps are faster and more accurate –ERF tasks had better results with track-up –WRF tasks had better results with north-up Aretz,1991 – ERF vs. WRF –Ego-centered frame  track-up –World-centered frame  north-up Butz, 2001 – landmarks at key decision points Background Research

Experiment – Hypotheses Hypotheses: –Null: There is no statistical difference between completion time, consultation time and number of errors between text and map directions, regardless of route complexity. –H 1 : Users will complete the tasks faster using map directions. –H 2 :Users will make fewer errors using map directions. –H 3 : Users will need less consultation time using text directions. –H 4 : Completion time will rise with increasing route complexity.

IVs & Treatments –Direction type: map vs. text –Route complexity: low, medium, high Low: 3 decision points, 893 ft Medium: 5 decision points, 897 ft High: 7 decision points, 883 ft DVs –Completion time –Consulting time –Errors Experiment – Variables

Subjects –7 male, 5 female –Undergrad & grad UMCP students Other materials –Pre & post-task questionnaires –VZ-2 Experiment – Materials

Navigate 3 routes using directions Within-subjects for routes Between-subjects for direction type 2 stopwatches Route permutations: Experiment – Tasks

Screen Shots Text ImplementationMap Implementation

Main effect for route: significant Main effect for direction: ns Interaction effect: ns Results – Completion Time

Main effect for route: significant Main effect for direction: ns Interaction effect: ns Results – Consultation Time

Main effect for route: significant Main effect for direction: ns Interaction effect: ns Results – Errors

Observations Learning seemed to have a significant effect on the results Most errors occurred at non-dead ends People are different –Huge variance in user performance in both map and text implementations –Difficulty judging distances in text version –Rotate map for track-up bearings –Looking ahead caused problems

Conclusions Need many more subjects Text directions are difficult to describe in college campus environment Feedback from “real” context-aware equipment could improve performance Track-up display for map could decrease orientation time Hybrid to accommodate variations in user cognitive strengths