LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Roberts, MJ; Newton, EJ; Canals, M (2016)
Publisher: John Benjamins Publishing
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
An experiment is reported in which two designs of Berlin U-/S-Bahn network maps were\ud compared for usability. One was conventional, based on standard schematic design rules used\ud worldwide: Straight lines with tightly radiused corners, and only horizontal, vertical, or 45ยบ\ud diagonal angles permitted. The other was a novel concept, based on concentric circles and\ud spokes radiating from a central point. The former has the benefit of simple line trajectories,\ud the latter potentially has the benefit of a coherent overall appearance. The experiment\ud investigated both an objective performance measure (time required to plan complex journeys)\ud and a variety of subjective measures (choice between maps, ratings of statements associated\ud with usability, direct ratings of usability). All subjects planned journeys using both designs.\ud Overall, performance was worse for the concentric circles map, and it received poor ratings.\ud However, in line with previous research, objective and subjective measures were dissociated.\ud For example, many subjects expressed a preference for the design that was not the best for\ud them in terms of objective performance.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bartram, D. J. (1980). Comprehending spatial information: The relative efficiency of different methods of presenting information about bus routes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 65, 103-110.
    • Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968--1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.
    • Bronzaft, A. L., & Dobrow, S. B. (1984). Improving transit information systems. Journal of Environmental Systems, 13, 365-376.
    • Bronzaft, A. L., Dobrow, S. B., & O'Hanlon, T. J. (1976). Spatial orientation in a subway system. Environment & Behavior, 8, 575-594.
    • Burch, M., Kurzhals, K., Raschke, M., Blascheck, T., & Weiskopf, D. (2014). How do people read metro maps? An eye tracking study. Schematic Mapping Workshop 2014, University of Essex, April. https://sites.google.com/site/schematicmapping/BurchEyeTracking.pdf [accessed 20/11/2015]
    • Carpenter, P. A. Just, M. A., and Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices test. Psychological Review, 97, 404-431.
    • Chabris, C., & Simons, D. (2010). The invisible gorilla. New York: Crown Publishing.
    • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
    • Dow, A. (2005). Telling the passenger where to get off. Harrow Weald, UK: Capital Transport Publishing.
    • Fink, M., Lechner, M., & Wolff, A. (2014). Concentric metro maps. Schematic Mapping Workshop 2014, University of Essex, April. https://sites.google.com/site/ schematicmapping/Fink-Concentric.pdf [accessed 20/11/2015]
    • Garland, K. (1994). Mr Beck's Underground map. Harrow Weald, UK: Capital Transport Publishing.
    • Roberts, M.J., Newton, E.J., Lagattolla, F.D., Hughes, S., & Hasler, M.C. (2013). Objective versus subjective measures of Paris Metro map usability: Investigating traditional octolinear versus all-curves schematic maps. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 71, 363-386.
    • Roberts, M. J., Welfare, H., Livermore, D. P. and Theadom, A. M. (2000). Context, visual salience, and inductive reasoning, Thinking and Reasoning, 6, 349-374.
    • Silvia, P. J., & Barona, C. M. (2009). Do people prefer curved objects? Angularity, expertise, and aesthetic preference. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 27, 25-42.
    • Stott, J. M., Rodgers, P. J., Martinez-Ovando, J. C., & Walker, S. G. (2011). Automatic metro map layout using multicriteria optimization. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17, 101-114.
    • Vertesi, J. (2008). Mind the Gap: The London Underground map and users' representations of urban space. Social Studies of Science, 38, 7-33.
    • Vodegel Matzen, L. B., Van der Molen, M. W., & Dudink, A. C. (1994). Error analysis of Raven test performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 433-445.
    • Wolff, A. (2007). Drawing subway maps: A survey. Informatik, 22, 23-44.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article