Types of maps used as a stimuli in cartographical empirical research

• Authors: Katarzyna Słomska

Abstracts

EN

Revisions of achievements of empirical studies in cartography focused on describing main research themes and diagnosing challenges to be approached. Intriguingly, there is no analysis of maps used as a stimuli in these experiments. In order to fill existing scarcity, this paper presents the analysis of the content of four journals affiliated by the International Cartographic Association. Four features (map medium, reactiveness, method of cartographic presentation, users familiarity with the depicted data) are described based on 103 papers presenting empirical studies. Types of maps were identified in scope of every feature. Most frequently used ones are displayed on the screen, non-interactive, depicting qualitative data and area unfamiliar for the participant of the study.

Keywords

EN

Cartography; map; empirical research; map perception

• Publisher: Wydział Geografii i Studiów Regionalnych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
• Journal: Miscellanea Geographica. Regional Studies on Development
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 22
• Issue: 3

Dates

published

2018

Contributors

author

Katarzyna Słomska

• Department of Geoinformatics, Cartography and Remote Sensing, Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland

References

• A Strategic Plan for the ICA 2003–2011, A Strategic Plan for the International Cartographic Association 2003-2011, International Cartographic Association. Available from: <http://icaci.org/files/documents/reference_docs/ICA_Strategic_Plan_2003-2011.pdf>. [21 November 2017].
• Andrienko, N, Andrienko, G, Voss, H, Bernardo, F, Hipolito, J & Kretchmer, U 2002, ‘Testing the Usability of Interactive Maps in CommonGIS’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 325–342.
• Axon, S, Speake, J & Crawford, K 2012, ‘At the next junction, turn left’. Attitudes towards Sat Nav use’, Area, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 170–177.
• Behrens, J, van Elzakker, CPJM & Schmidt, M 2015, ‘Testing the Usability of OpenStreetMap’s iD Tool’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 177–184.
• Carter, S, Mankoff, J, Klemmer, SR & Matthews, T 2008, ‘Exiting the Cleanroom. On Ecological Validity and Ubiquitous Computing’, Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 47–99.
• Cartwright, W, Peterson, MP & Gartner, G 2007, Multimedia Cartography, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. Available from: <https://books.google.pl/books?id=22OSBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false>. [11 November 2017].
• Fabrikant, SI, Rebich-Hespanha, S, Andrienko, N, Andrienko, G & Montello, DR 2008, ‘Novel Method to Measure Inference Affordance in Static Small-Multiple Map Displays Representing Dynamic Processes’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 201–215.
• Fish, C, Goldsberry, KP & Battersby, S 2011, ‘Change Blindness in Animated Choropleth Maps. An Empirical Study’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 350–362.
• Flannery, JJ 1956, The graduated circle; a description, analysis and evaluation of a quantitative map symbol. PhD thesis. Available from: <http://www.worldcat.org/title/graduated-circle-a-description-analysis-and-evaluation-of-a-quantitative-map symbol/oclc/607012888>. [11 November 2017].
• Gilmartin, P 1992, ‘Twenty-five Years of Cartographic Research. A Content Analysis’, Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 37–47.
• Gołębiowska, I 2015, ‘Legend Layouts for Thematic Maps. A Case Study Integrating Usability Metrics with the Thinking Aloud Method’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 28–40.
• Harrower, M 2007, ‘Unclassed Animated Choropleth Maps’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 313–320.
• Harvey, F & Kotting, J 2011, ‘Teaching Mapping for Digital Natives. New Pedagogical Ideas for Undergraduate Cartography Education’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 269–277.
• Hochmair, H 2009, ‘The Influence of Map Design on Route Choice from Public Transportation Maps in Urban Areas’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 242–256.
• Kraak, MJ & Brown, A 2001, Web cartography. Developments and prospects, Taylor & Francis, London, New York.
• Kraak, M-J & Ormeling, F 2015, Cartography. Visualization of spatial data, Routledge, London.
• Lloyd, RE & Bunch, RL 2005, ‘Individual Differences in Map Reading Spatial Abilities Using Perceptual and Memory Processes’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 33–46.
• Montello, DR 2002, ‘Cognitive Map-Design Research in the Twentieth Century: Theoretical and Empirical Approaches’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 283–304.
• Montello, DR 2009, ‘Cognitive Research in GIScience. Recent Achievements and Future Prospects’, Geography Compass, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 1824–1840.
• Montello, DR & Freundschuh, S 2005, ‘Cognition of Geographic Information’ in A research agenda for geographic information science, eds McMaster R. B. & Usery E. L., pp. 61–91.
• Murakoshi, S & Higashi, H 2016, ‘Cognitive characteristics of navigational map use by mountaineers’, International Journal of Cartography, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 210–231.
• Ooms, K, Maeyer, PD, Dupont, L, van der Veken, N, van de Weghe, N & Verplaetse, S 2016, ‘Education in cartography. What is the status of young people’s map-reading skills?’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 134–153.
• Ooms, K, Maeyer, PD, Fack, V, van Assche, E & Witlox, F 2012, ‘Investigating the Effectiveness of an Efficient Label Placement Method Using Eye Movement Data’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 234–246.
• Ooms, K, Maeyer, P de & Fack, V 2014, ‘Study of the attentive behavior of novice and expert map users using eye tracking’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 37–54.
• Opach, T, Gołębiowska, I & Fabrikant, SI 2014, ‘How Do People View Multi-Component Animated Maps?’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 330–342.
• Opach, T, Popelka, S, Dolezalova, J & Rød, JK 2017, ‘Star and polyline glyphs in a grid plot and on a map display. Which perform better?’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 1–20.
• Opach, T & Rød, JK 2014, ‘Do choropleth maps linked with parallel coordinates facilitate an understanding of multivariate spatial characteristics?’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 413–429.
• Oxford Dictionaries 2017. Available from: <https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/>. [21 November 2017].
• Petchenik, BB 1977, ‘Cognition In Cartography’, Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 117–128.
• Prensky, M 2001, ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1’, On the Horizon, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1–6.
• Robinson, AH 1985, The look of maps. An examination of cartgraph. design, Univ. of Wisconsin Pr, Madison, Wis. Robinson, AH, Morrison, JL, Muehrcke, PC, Kimerling, AJ & Guptill, SC 1995, Elements of cartography. 6th ed, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
• Roth, RE 2013a, ‘Cartographic Interaction Primitives. Framework and Synthesis’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 376–395.
• Roth, RE 2013b, ‘Interactive maps. What we know and what we need to know’, Journal of Spatial Information Science, no. 6, pp. 59–115.
• Roth, RE, Çöltekin, A, Delazari, L, Filho, HF, Griffin, A, Hall, A, Korpi, J, Lokka, I, Mendonça, A, Ooms, K & van Elzakker, CPJM 2017, ‘User studies in cartography. Opportunities for empirical research on interactive maps and visualizations’, International Journal of Cartography, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–29.
• Saint-Marc, C, Villanova-Oliver, M, Davoine, P-A, Pams Capoccioni, C & Chenier, D 2017, ‘User testing of dynamic geovisualizations. Lessons learned and possible improvements for cartographic experiments’, International Journal of Cartography, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 88–101.
• Slocum, T, Sluter, R, Kessler, F & Yoder, S 2004, ‘A Qualitative Evaluation of MapTime, A Program For Exploring Spatiotemporal Point Data’, Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 43–68.
• Slocum, TA 2010, Thematic cartography and geovisualization, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
• Slocum, TA, Blok, C, Jiang Bin, Koussoulakou, A, Montello, DR, Fuhrmann, S & Hedley, NR 2001, ‘Cognitive and Usability Issues in Geovisualization’, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 61–75.
• Speake, J 2016, ‘”I’ve got my Sat Nav, it’s alright”: Users’ Attitudes towards, and Engagements with, Technologies of Navigation’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 345–355.
• Speake, J & Axon, S 2013, ‘”I Never Use ‘Maps’ Anymore”: Engaging with Sat Nav Technologies and the Implications for Cartographic Literacy and Spatial Awareness’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 326–336.
• Sun, H & Li, Z 2010, ‘Effectiveness of Cartogram for the Representation of Spatial Data’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 12–21.
• Tanaka, M & Ichikawa, T 1988, ‘A visual user interface for map information retrieval based on semantic significance’, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 666–670.
• Vosskühler, A, Nordmeier, V, Kuchinke, L & Jacobs, AM 2008, ‘OGAMA (Open Gaze and Mouse Analyzer). Open-source software designed to analyze eye and mouse movements in slideshow study designs’, Behavior research methods, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1150–1162.
• White, T 2017, ‘Identifying Best Practices by Examining Relationships Between Reporting in User Studies and Design of User Studies’.
• ICC 2017 Proceedings. Żyszkowska, W 2015, ‘Map perception. Theories and research in the second half of the twentieth century’, Polish Cartographical Review, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 179 190.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/mgrsd-2018-0014

Biblioteka Nauki

2134589