Why Shape Matters—On the Inherent Qualities of Geometric Shapes for Cartographic Representations

Abstract

All human communication involves the use of signs. By following a mutually shared set of signs and rules, meaning can be conveyed from one entity to another. Cartographic semiology provides such a theoretical framework, suggesting how to apply visual variables with respect to thematic content. However, semiotics does not address how the choice and composition of such visual variables may lead to different connotations, interpretations, or judgments. The research herein aimed to identify perceived similarities between geometric shape symbols as well as strategies and processes underlying these similarity judgments. Based on a user study with 38 participants, the (dis)similarities of a set of 12 basic geometric shapes (e.g., circle, triangle, square) were examined. Findings from cluster analysis revealed a three-cluster configuration, while multidimensional scaling further quantified the proximities between the geometric shapes in a two-dimensional space. Qualitative and quantitative content analyses identified four strategies underlying the participants’ similarity judgments, namely visual, affective, associative, and behavioral strategies. With the findings combined, this research provides a differentiated perspective on shape proximities, cognitive relations, and the processes involved.

Form Follows Content: An Empirical Study on Symbol-Content (In)Congruences in Thematic Maps

“…Such particular stimulus-affect correspondences are moreover supported by related empirical research on map symbols, which found that asymmetric star symbols were experienced as highly dynamic and of negative valence, whereas symmetric shapes were regarded as neutral or slightly positive and of rather static quality [44]. Related research further showed that point symbols may be experienced visually, associatively, and affectively [43]. Map topic-specific visualization preferences may therefore result due to either of these dimensions.…”

“…Empirical research, moreover, highlights a significant impact on map reading intuitiveness, judgments, and preferences towards maps based on how uncertainty is cartographically visualized [33,[39][40][41]. Empirical research on abstract map symbols further suggests a significant influence on detection speed in visual search tasks [42] as well as on associative and affective responses [43,44] based on symbol type.…”

Vgi Visualisation to Support Participatory Lake Monitoring: The Case Study of Simile Project

“…Brychtova & Coltekin (2016) combine eye-tracking with traditional usability metrics to assess the effectiveness of visualisation and Nivala et al, (2003) explore field tests to identify, at an early stage of the project, preliminary design principles for maps in small displays. Klettner (2019) investigates shape proximities and cognitive relation in symbology, while Stone (2006) defines some guidelines for choosing colours. The main challenge of SIMILE app map view, using Chandler's (2002) words, "is changing the form of the signifier while keeping the same signified in order to generate different connotations".…”

Designing Geovisual Analytics Environments and Displays with Humans in Mind

“…While studying specific map types (such as earthquake maps and weather maps) allow us to observe specific patterns for the studied "visualization families", there are certain considerations at a fundamental level that would potentially apply to all visuospatial displays. In "Why Shape Matters-On the Inherent Qualities of Geometric Shapes for Cartographic Representations", Klettner (2019) [22] characterizes the strategies users apply when evaluating and comparing basic geometric shapes (which are included in all visuospatial displays). Klettner's study seeks to dive one level deeper into the crucial visual variable of shape, to see whether or not it is possible to separate types of shapes into discriminable categories.…”