Marked-up maps: Combining paper maps and electronic information resources

1
Marked-up mapsCombining paper maps and
electronic information resources

• By
• Derek Reilly, Malcolm Rodgers, Ritchie
  Argue, Mike Nunes, Kori Inkpen

2
Background/Motivation

• Integration of paper and digital information.
• Paper user interfaces
• Information is fed into the system using paper
  like interface.
• Used for information retrieval.
• Tangible user interfaces
• Capture input and provide output through physical
  artifacts.
• Give physical form to digital information.

3
Advantages of paper based maps

• Knowledge of how to use.
• Portability.
• Clearer, more accessible view that displays a
  wider region.
• Easier to study and manipulate.

4
Limitations

• Static views.
• Scope of information.
• Level of detail available.
• Heavy dependence on spatial search.

5
Scenarios

• Personal map
• Identifying a resource on the way to destination.
• Lookup the handheld device and mark the legend
  for the resource on the paper map.
• Public information kiosk
• Details about a point of interest in a city.
• Eliminate need of kiosk.
• Retrieved information is portable.

6
Marked-up maps

• Direct interaction between digital and physical
  media.
• Recognizes the advantages of paper maps, but
  augments with location-specific information that
  is accessible.
• Information is retrieved from paper maps,
• using a handheld device.
• The handheld is used as a lens to provide an
  interactive overlay for paper maps.

7
Technical implementation

• Map locations are identified using RFID tags.
• Details about the selected region appear on the
  screen.
• Web browser is used as an user interface of the
  handheld.
• HTML formatted information for every tag is fed
  into the device.
• Information is available when device is held over
  a location.

8
Field trial

• Tourist information about Nottingham was
  obtained.
• Paper map gave a superior knowledge for planning
  and navigation
• Combination of spatial information with detailed
  information was illuminating.
• Using paper maps and mobile access at the same
  time was cumbersome.

9
Aims of exploratory study

• Evaluate the technique in various scenarios.
• Observe general use of markup technique by novice
  users.
• Is marking up maps really necessary?
• Would accessing an online supplement map
  supplement with the handheld be equally
  beneficial?

10
Design of the study

• Within subjects, balanced with respect to order
  of use and scenarios.
• 12 participants.
• 5 tasks, to be performed using both the
  interfaces.
• Participants were trained for use of paper maps
  as well as RFID reading mechanism.

11
Measurement

• Quantitative
• Time taken to complete the task (or time taken
  until left incomplete).
• Whether task was completed correctly.
• Number of switches between paper maps and
  handheld computers.
• Amount of time spent using the paper map.
• Qualitative
• Enjoyment
• Overall effectiveness.
• Effectiveness in locating items of interest
• Effectiveness in relating the map with guide
  resources.

12
Scenario 1

• Montreal subway
• Use of markup with a vertical mounted public map.
• Information about nearby points of interests,
  available online, was fed into the handheld.
• 4 tasks to retrieve information associated with a
  subway station, e.g., about nearby restaurants.
• Final task to relate information across adjacent
  stations.

13
Scenario 2

• Nottingham
• Use of map by a tourist in the city.
• Map presented downtown streets, iconic
  representations of city landmarks.
• Current tourist information was fed into the
  handheld device.
• 4 tasks to find information about a single
  attraction, e.g., local folklore.
• Final task involved searching several related
  resources.

14
Scenario 3

• Greater Vancouver
• Road map including wide range of landmarks.
• Descriptive information about each item along
  with Google Local links was fed into the
  handheld.
• 3 tasks involving simple information retrieval.
• 4th task to compare two similar locations in
  different regions of the map.
• 5th task to combine information from handheld
  with information from paper map.

15
The two interfaces

• Non markup condition
• Paper map was provided, along with the electronic
  portion of the paper map.
• Textual index to locate information.
• Only a portion of the map viewable at one time
• Markup condition
• RFID on the handheld.
• Specific legends on the maps are clickable.
• Same information fed into the handheld as in the
  non markup condition.

16
Results

• Quantitative measures
• No significant difference between time taken to
  complete the tasks.
• No difference in the number of incorrect
  responses.
• Qualitative measures
• No clear preference for a specific technique.
• Markup technique more effective for Vancouver
  scenario and Nottingham scenario.
• Very little use of electronic maps in non markup
  condition.

17
Summary

• Effectiveness of a technique is dependent on the
  map and the scenario.
• Further improvements can be made in the
  implementation.
• Technique is more effective when there is a need
  to relate the information retrieved with spatial
  knowledge.

18
Future work

• Occluding the paper map.
• Overlay lenses.
• Relating details back to paper map.
• More complex interaction.

19
Thoughts, comments, questions?

• Importance
• Credibility
• Novelty
• Applicability
• Generalizability
• Scalability
• Assumptions
• Readability