Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
favorite layout,
the votes for Layout 3 (30.3 %) and Layout 4 (32.1 %) turned out to
be the highest, while the others ranked far behind (Layout 1: 11.9 %; Layout 2:
7.3 %; Layout 5: 18.4 %).
In summary, Layouts 3 and 4 did not only outperform the other GUI layouts in
terms of efficiency and effectiveness, but also in terms of visual attractiveness
(preference or satisfaction regarding the visual design).
Discussion
Although the five tested atlas GUI designs included exactly the same functionality
and they were presented in grey-scale, it seems that students rated some of the
layouts as more attractive than others. While this is not always the case in user
studies (Hegarty et al.
2009
), the subjects
intuition seems to be perfectly aligned
with their performances in this case; those layouts which were rated as most
attractive were also those where task performance was best. This impression was
reinforced by the fact that students retained their favorite layouts—
Layout 3
and
Layout 4
—before solving the tasks and also after solving the tasks. These layouts
were characterized by a compact GUI design where functions were grouped and
easily recognizable through labels. Since these two layouts (3 and 4) had a quite
similar appearance (Fig.
1
), the possibility of an indirect learning effect for these
two layouts cannot be excluded despite the stimuli randomization. This possible
bias can be addressed in a future study when the two layouts are evaluated in an
inter-subject test. However, at this point, one should note that while the two
interfaces were similar, they are not identical, and especially given that the students
stated their preferences before solving tasks, we can assume that the applied design
concept indeed may have a favorable configuration compared to the others. Another
possible reason for the popularity and success of Layout 4 may be a familiarity bias
as it was modeled after Google Maps (which is likely well-tested, as well as used by
the participants before).
Contrarily,
Layout 2
showed a poor performance and effectiveness. Besides a
more scattered arrangement of functions, ambiguities appeared in this layout
between the map title, theme menu and legend. Digital natives seem to have
assumed the map title was an interactive area and expected the theme menu or
legend to open when clicked. To evade this ambiguity, the map title should either be
clearly discernible as such or implement the functionality of the legend or theme
menu. Another drawback of Layout 2 was that students did not grasp the meaning of
icons as fast as with the labeled functions of other layouts. Tooltips and better-
designed icons could have helped the participants identify these functions.
Layout 1
was more efficient than Layout 2; however, tasks were solved less
successfully. An explanation for this might be that participants had to click twice at
four tasks in Layout 1, so probably some participants proceeded to the next question
after the first screen changed although the task has not yet been completed.
'
