Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Comparing Paper and Digital Topographic
Maps Using Eye Tracking
Annelies Incoul, Kristien Ooms, and Philippe De Maeyer
Introduction
Paper Versus Digital Maps
For long, paper was seen as the primary means of communication. Because of its
many advantages, it is a universal and dynamic medium: ease of use, transportation
and archiving (Johnson et al.
1993
). Therefore, in the past it was obvious to choose
for the paper medium to depict geographical information. More recently however,
maps are not limited anymore to the paper medium, but are also disseminated in a
digital format (Peterson
1997
). The Internet has played a significant role in the rise
of the digital cartographic products: they are accessible by a wide range of users,
can be easily updated and manipulated. Examples of leading projects in digital
cartography are Google Maps and OpenStreetMaps. Projects like these introduced
the geographical information (visualised through digital cartographic products) to
the general public. This is closely linked with the world wide use of Global
Positioning Systems (GPS), which also caused a considerable rise in the number
of available maps (Hurst and Clough
2013
; Pederson et al.
2005
).
These digital maps also come with a number of drawbacks, mainly related to the
limitations of the screen on which they are depicted: resolution, colour range and
dimensions (e.g. Kraak and Brown
2001
; Peterson
2003
). The resolution of the
screens on which digital maps are depicted are typically much lower than this of
paper documents (e.g. 92 ppi versus 1,200 dpi respectively). What is more, different
screens have different colour ranges. Maps that are distributed through the Internet
are visualised on different screens, which could cause a shift in how the colour is
represented. Finally, the dimensions of the screens can vary significantly: 7 in.,
