A Comparison of Map vs . Text Directions for a Handheld Device in a Campus Setting: A Pilot Study

1. A Comparison of Map vs. Text Directions for a Handheld Device in a Campus Setting: A Pilot Study December 2001

2. Map vs. Text Directions • 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.

3. Rover • 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

4. Background Research • 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

5. 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. • H1: Users will complete the tasks faster using map directions. • H2:Users will make fewer errors using map directions. • H3: Users will need less consultation time using text directions. • H4: Completion time will rise with increasing route complexity.

6. Experiment – Variables • 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

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

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

9. Screen Shots Text Implementation Map Implementation

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

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

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

13. 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

14. 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