Addressing Map Interface Usability: Learning from the Lakeshore Nature Preserve Interactive Map

Abstract

These are exciting days for cartography, as emerging technologies have greatly expanded the possibilities of online, interactive maps. These developments, however, now require cartographers to think about issues that only a few years ago fell solely in the domains of human-computer interaction (HCI) and web design. Further, given how fast these changes have occurred, there are few tried-and-true guidelines for building digital maps. This paper reports on the design, development, and evaluation of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Lakeshore Nature Preserve Interactive Map (www.lakeshorepreserve.wisc.edu) and outlines many of the insights gleaned from this process. The purpose of this article is to strengthen the important bridge between cartography and usability evaluation (i.e., how we study the way in which users interact with their maps and how we measure the success of those interactions) so that the efforts of a team of developers and stakeholders can be coordinated in a way that ensures the map works equally well for all potential end users. We outline the relative merits of two broad categories of evaluation techniques, arguing that there is no single, correct evaluation technique appropriate for all evaluation scenarios, and then detail the specific strategy adopted for evaluation of the Lakeshore Nature Preserve Interactive Map. We conclude by offering four design guidelines for online, interactive maps revealed during the evaluation of the Lakeshore Nature Preserve Interactive Map: two positive strategies we recommend for consideration when designing map interfaces (inclusion of cascading interface complexity and provision of map browsing flexibility) and two pitfalls we caution to avoid (minimalist design of interface widgets and employment of a lorem ipsum map during development).

Planning with Citizens: Implementation of an e-Planning Platform and Analysis of Research Needs

“…That is users "simply" place a pushpin on a map and describe what they have encountered, or their concern, in a text box. This appears straightforward, but Nivala et al (2008), Roth and Harrower (2008), and Newman et al (2010) found that some users of web maps had difficulty navigating the map and did not understand, or misunderstood map symbols. This makes us question if a purely map-based approach is useful.…”

Weevil Viewer: An interactive mapping application for geographic and phenological exploration of Wisconsin's primitive weevils

“…Flexible map browsing (i.e. panning and zooming) is supported in the Map Panel (Roth & Harrower, 2008), allowing the user to zoom to a site of interest through direct manipulation of the map itself (e.g. double-click) and through a zoom slider widget.…”

The Basic Ordnance Observational Management System: geovisual exploration and analysis of improvised explosive device incidents

“…The map view provides the cartographic interaction operators typical of a 'slippy' web mapping service (i.e., pan, zoom, overlay, retrieve) through the direct manipulation interface style (Roth, 2011). The analyst can manipulate the basemap in accordance with Google Maps mashup conventions, which include flexible map browsing (i.e., panning and zooming; Roth & Harrower, 2008) and toggling among multiple basemap depictions (e.g., overlay of a vector map, satellite image, shaded relief with land cover types). Selection of an individual proportional symbol plotted in the map view activates a popup window containing summary information (i.e., information retrieval), as well as updates the records list.…”