Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Another approach to examining usability is using eye-tracking to follow the
user
s eye. An example of an eye-tracking study focusing on the comparison of 2D
and 3D cartographic visualization can be found in Popelka and Brychtov
´
(
2013
).
'
Methods
It has been 5 years since Nivala et al. (
2008
) presented a usability evaluation of
world-wide map portals. The present study deals with usability testing of the same
map portals and tries to identify whether the problems described in 2008 have been
solved or persist. Moreover, the potential deficiencies of up-to-date portals are
indicated. Nivala examined Google Maps, MSN Maps & Directions, MapQuest,
and Multimap. MSN Maps & Directions and Multimap have since been joined to
Bing Maps, so the well-known map sites compared in this work are Google Maps
(hereafter referred to as GM,
http://maps.google.com/
), MapQuest (MQ,
http://
www.mapquest.com/
)
, and Bing Maps (BM,
http://www.bing.com/maps/
).
It was considered whether to include some alternative or local map portals in the
study. The study was eventually limited to the above-mentioned map portals due to
particular map portal functions, language dependencies that might limit future
study, etc.
Visual Interpretation
The map portals were initially examined in terms of the problems analysed by
Nivala et al. (
2008
), who defined four categories: user interface, map, search
operations, and help and guidance. Since the map portals have seen certain
improvements in the meantime, some of these problems have been solved while
others remain unsolved.
The problems concerning user interface may be regarded as solved. Neverthe-
less, the main problem reported concerning user interface was the overloading of
web map homepages with advertisements and additional information. Moreover, in
some cases there was no link to the map on the homepage. Another problem was the
fact that links opened in the same browser window as the map, and there was no
quick way back to the homepage. The last major problem in this category was the
form and placement of the function buttons.
Most of the defined problems were related to the map field. The principal
problem was map visualization—maps looked like paper maps instead of web
maps, and their visualization was messy and confusing. The other problems
presented in 2008 were the absence of a print function or route direction tool and
the fact that the scale bar showed only miles. Panning was sometimes found to be
problematic and slow, or there was no possibility to add markers into the map. Most
of these problems have since been resolved, but other problems in this category still
