Advertisement

Towards Geospatial Tangible User Interfaces: An Observational User Study Exploring Geospatial Interactions of the Novice

  • Catherine Emma JonesEmail author
  • Valérie Maquil
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 582)

Abstract

Tangible user interfaces (TUI) such as tangible tabletops have potential as novel and innovative learning environments for mapping applications across a wide range of geospatial learning activities. This is because they offer a more natural and intuitive class of interface to users and they are fun to use. For realising their potential as a new type of geo-technology, they must be easy and straightforward to learn and remember how to use. Furthermore, the different types of tangible object interactions should align to the mental models and cultural perceptions of different types of users. This paper reports on the results of an initial observational of a small set of novice users. Users were recorded completing six tasks whilst thinking aloud. The resulting analysis revealed how easy it was for the novice to discover the different types of geospatial tangible interactions (e.g., zoom, pan, adding layers, working with layers). Formed around the categories of (1) everyday cartographic elements and their everyday metaphors, (2) object manipulations, and (3) offline interactions we propose a set usability guidelines for geospatial tangible tables. The aim is to provide an evidence base on which to improve future iterations of the improving their usability, usefulness and increasing their potential as a learning interface.

Keywords

Tangible user interface Cartography Geospatial information Usability Qualitative study User study Tangible interfaces TUI Mapping User centred design Interactive tabletops 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially funded by the Interreg IVb project Weastflows and the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST). We would like to extend our thanks to all the experiment participants who provided excellent data on which we could base this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Djajadiningrat, T., Wensveen, S., Frens, J., Overbeeke, K.: Tangible products: re-dressing the balance between appearance and action. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 8(5), 294–309 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Esteves, A., Michelle S., Ian O.: Supporting offline activities on interactive surfaces. In: Proceedings of TEI 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faulkner, L.: Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav. Res. Methods Instr. Comput. 35(3), 379–383 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernaeus, Y., Jakob, T.: Looking at the computer but doing it on land: children’ s interactions in a tangible programming space. In: McEwan, T., Gulliksen, J., Benyon, D. (eds.) People and Computers XIX — The Bigger Picture, pp. 3–18. Springer, London (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fernaeus, Y., Tholander, J., Jonsson, M.: Towards a new set of ideals: consequences of the practice turn in tangible interaction. In: Proceedings of TEI 2008, pp. 223–230. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer, G.: External and sharable artefacts as sources for social creativity in communities of interest. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Roundtable Conference: Computational and Cognitive Models of Creative Design, Australia, 9–13 December 2002Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fishkin, K.: A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Pers. Ubiquit. Comput. 8(5), 347–358 (2004). doi: 10.1007/s00779-004-0297-4 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fuhrmann, S., et al.: Making useful and useable geovisualization: design and evaluation issues. Exploring Geovisualization, 553–566 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodchild, M.F.: Twenty years of progress: GIScience in 2010. J. Spat. Inf. Sci. 1, 3–20 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodchild, M.F.: Spatial thinking and the GIS user interface. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 21, 3–9 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haklay, M., Tobón, C.: Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centred design approach. Int. J. of Geograph. Inf. Sci. 17(6), 577–592 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hornecker, E., Buur, J.: Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hwang, W., Salvendy, G.: Number of people required for usability evaluation: the 10±2 rule. Commun. ACM 53(5), 130–133 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ishii, H., Ullmer, B.: Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of CHI 1997, 22–27 March 1997Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/TR 16982:2002: ISO/TR 16982:2002: “Ergonomics of human-system interaction – usability methods supporting human-centred design,” International Standards for Business, Government and SocietyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones, C.E., Haklay, M., Griffiths, S., Vaughan, L.: A less-is-more approach to geovisualisation – enhancing knowledge construction across multidisciplinary teams. Int. J. Geograph. Inf. Syst. 23(8), 1077–1093 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones, C.E.: Practical cartography. In: Haklay, M. (ed.) Interacting with Geospatial Technologies. Wiley, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones, C.E., Weber, P.: Towards usability engineering for online editors of volunteered geographic information: a perspective on learnability. Trans. GIS 16(4), 523–544 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landauer, T.K., Nielsen, J.: A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: Interchi 1993, ACM Computer–Human Interface Special Interest Group (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Longley, P., Goodchild, M., Maguire, D., Rhind, D.: Geog. Information Systems and Science. Wiley, Chichester (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    MacEachren, A.M., Kraak, J.A.: Research challenges in geovisualization. Cartography Geograph. Inf. Sci. 28, 3–12 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacEachren, A.M., Cai, G., Sharma, R., Rauschert, I., Brewer, I., Bolelli, L., Wang, H.: Enabling collaborative geoinformation access and decision-making through a natural, multimodal interface. Int. J. GIS 19(3), 293–317 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacEacheren, A.M., Cia, G., Brewer, I., Chen, J.: Supporting map-based geocollaboration through natural interfaces to large screen displays. Cartographic Perspect. 54, 16–34 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maquil, V.: Towards understanding the design space of tangible user interfaces for collaborative urban planning. Interact. Comput. (2015). doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwv005
  25. 25.
    Maquil, V., De Sousa L., Leopold U., Tobias E.: A geospatial tangible user interface to support stakeholder participation in urban planning. In: Proceedings of GISTAM 2015 (2015, to be published)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maquil, V., Ras, E.: Collaborative problem solving with objects: physical aspects of a tangible tabletop in technology-based assessment. In: COOP 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marsh, S.L.: Using and evaluating HCI techniques in geovisualization: applying standard and adapted methods in research and education. In: Proceedings of GIS Research UK, pp. 33–38 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marshall, P.: Do tangible interfaces enhance learning. In: Proceedings of TEI 2007, Baton Rouge, LA, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Montello, D.: Spatial cognition. In: Smelser, N., Baltes, P. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, pp. 14771–14775. Pergamon Press, Oxford (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nagel, T., Maitan, M., Duval, E., Moere, A.V., Klerkx, J., Kloeckl, K., Ratti, C.: Touching transport-a case study on visualizing metropolitan public transit on interactive tabletops (2014)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nivala, A.M., Brewster, S., Sarjakoski, T.L.: Usability evaluation of web mapping sites. Cartographic J. 45(2), 129–138 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parsons, E.: The map of the future may not be a map! Cartographic Rev. 50(2), 182–186 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Price, S.: A representation approach to conceptualizing tangible learning environments. In: Proceedings of TEI 2008, p. 151. ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roth, R.E.: Interactivity and cartography: a contemporary perspective on user interface and user experience design from geospatial professionals. Cartographica 50, 2 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schneider, B., Jermann, P., Zufferey, G., Dillenbourg, P.: Benefits of a tangible interface for collaborative learning and interaction. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 4(2), 222–232 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Scott, S., Allavena, A., Cerar, K., Mcclelland, P., Cheung, V.: Designing and assessing a multi-user tabletop interface to support collaborative decision-making involving dynamic geospatial data. Technical report, University of Waterloo, Canada (2010)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C.: Designing the User Interface, 4th edn. Pearson, Addison Wesley, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sui, D.: The wikification of GIS and its consequences: or Angelina Jolie’s new tattoo and the future of GIS. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 32, 1–5 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ullmer, B.: Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM Syst. J. 39, 915–931 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tversky, B., Morrison, J.B., Betrancourt, M.: Animation: can it facilitate? Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 57, 247–262 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jones, C.E., Maquil, V.:. Twist, shift, or stack? Usability analysis of geospatial interactions on a tangible tabletop (2015)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fernaeus, Y., Tholander, J., Jonsson, M.: Towards a new set of ideals: consequences of the practice turn in tangible interaction. In: Proceedings of TEI 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Maquil, V., Ras, E.: Collaborative problem solving with objects: physical aspects of a tangible tabletop in technology-based assessment. In: Proceedings of COOP 2012 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CVCELuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST)LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations