2016
DOI: 10.1080/13875868.2016.1219912
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mental representation of landmarks on maps: Investigating cartographic visualization methods with eye tracking technology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, this sample size generally aligns with what has been used in many other eye-tracking studies investigating map reading [45,51,52,66] as well as wayfinding and pedestrian navigation [29,[69][70][71]. For example, Kiefer, Giannopoulos and Raubal [54] had 14 participants in their experiment match map symbols and landmarks in the real environment.…”
Section: Gender Differences and Its Implications To Map Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, this sample size generally aligns with what has been used in many other eye-tracking studies investigating map reading [45,51,52,66] as well as wayfinding and pedestrian navigation [29,[69][70][71]. For example, Kiefer, Giannopoulos and Raubal [54] had 14 participants in their experiment match map symbols and landmarks in the real environment.…”
Section: Gender Differences and Its Implications To Map Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Kiefer, Giannopoulos and Raubal [54] had 14 participants in their experiment match map symbols and landmarks in the real environment. In the study conducted by Franke and Schweikart [70], the 21 participants were separated into three groups. Each group was presented with text, icon, or vignette landmarks.…”
Section: Gender Differences and Its Implications To Map Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Li, Korda, Radtke, and Schwering (2014) proposed landmarks displayed on a mobile map for distinguishing between off-and on-screen landmarks. Franke and Schweikart (2016) examined the differences in users viewing three types of landmark symbols. Keil et al (2019) explored the visual salience of OSM landmark pictograms using eye fixation measures.…”
Section: Landmark Visualization For Pedestrian Navigation Mapsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Map-reading efficiency is significantly positively correlated with color distance [18], but deviating colors attract the attention of map readers, which could influence the interpretation of the map [19]. The quality of map symbols, such as the number of colors used and the design of symbols [12], influences the usability of a map, but different classes of symbols used to signify landmarks do not significantly affect fixation duration [20]. The hierarchy of the legend entries also significantly impacts the usability of a map [12], and while experts and novices display similar gaze patterns when using a color-ordered legend, the visual behavior of experts is more deliberate when using alphabetically ordered legends [21].…”
Section: Eye Tracking In Cartographymentioning
confidence: 99%