Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Fig. 11.3 How the sense of direction differs among different navigation conditions. Vertical bars
denote 95% confidence intervals
test. 2 According to the test, the difference among these three navigation conditions
was not significant (F(2,21)
¼
1.60, p
¼
0.23).
11.3.2 Sketched Landmarks
Literature has shown that it is useful to stick to topological interpretation of sketch
maps only (Lynch 1960 ; Gartner and Hiller 2009 ). Therefore, the analysis of sketch
maps focused on two topological aspects: sketched landmarks (landmark names),
and errors in sketching turns. The later aspect will be discussed in next section. In
this section, the results of sketched landmarks are presented. Figure 11.4 shows the
mean number of sketched landmarks in these navigation conditions.
According to Fig. 11.4 , voice users drew more landmarks in their sketch maps
compared to AR users and map users. We also found that 78% of the landmarks
sketched by voice users were mentioned/included in the verbal wayfinding
instructions. Therefore, the reason why map users and AR users drew fewer
landmarks may be that: for the map-based and AR-based prototypes, landmarks
were not explicitly highlighted (e.g., they were displayed in the background map in
the map-based prototype, and were not visualized in the AR-based prototype).
While for the voice-based prototype, landmarks were explicitly included in the
verbal instructions. However, there was no significant difference in the number of
sketched landmarks across different navigation conditions (F(2,21)
¼
1.63,
p
¼
0.22).
2 The surroundings of each sub-route are characterized by residential and business areas. In
addition, the three sub-routes have comparable complexity (in terms of the number of decision
points). Therefore, we did not consider sub-routes as a factor when comparing the performance
among different navigation conditions, and a one-way ANOVA was used.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search