Abstract
Map mashups are now common when presenting information in digital media. This paper explores the relation between the background information (basemap) and the information that is displayed over the basemap. Will the user be disturbed by the background when solving tasks related to the overlaid information? To answer this and other questions, a web-based experiment was prepared. The participants in the experiment were introduced to different tasks based on combinations of data primitives in the top layer. Three different basemaps were tested. In a focused part of the experiment, tasks related to the combination of area and points in the top layer were explored more closely. The experiment indicated that the tasks related to different coloured areas in combination with points of different colours were more time consuming to solve on a topographic map with many details.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bereuter, P., & Weibel, R. (2013). Real-time generalization of point data in mobile and web mapping using quadtrees. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 40(4), 271–281.
Chesneau, E. (2011). A model for the automatic improvement of colour contrasts in maps: Application to risk maps. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 25(1), 89–111.
ColorBrewer. (2016). ColorBrewer: Color advice for maps. Retrieved July 13, 2016, from http://colorbrewer2.org/.
Dong, W., Liao, H., Roth, R. E., & Wang, S. (2014). Eye tracking to explore the potential of enhanced imagery basemaps in web mapping. The Cartographic Journal, 51(4), 313–329.
ESRI. (2016). ArcGIS online, ready to use maps. Retrieved July 12, 2016, from http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis/arcgisonline/features/maps.
Fichter, D. (2016). What is a mashup? In N. C. Engard (Ed.), More library mashups. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from http://books.infotoday.com/books/More-Library-Mashups.shtml.
Gibin, M., Singleton, A., Milton, R., Mateos, P., & Longley, P. (2008). An exploratory cartographic visualisation of London through the Google maps API. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 1(2), 85–97.
Harrie, L. E. (1999). The constraint method for solving spatial conflicts in cartographic generalization. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 26(1), 55–69.
Konečný, M., Kubíček, P., Stachoň, Z., & Šašinka, Č. (2011). The usability of selected base maps for crises management—Users perspectives. Applied Geomatics, 3(4), 189–198.
Korpi, J., & Ahonen-Rainio, P. (2013). Clutter reduction methods for point symbols in map mashups. The Cartographic Journal, 50(3), 257–265.
Krantz, J. H., & Dalal, R. (2000). Chapter 2—Validity of web-based psychological research A2—Birnbaum. In H. Michael (Ed.), Psychological experiments on the internet (pp. 35–60). San Diego.
Lai, P.-C., & Yeh, A. G.-O. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of dynamic symbols in cartographic communication. The Cartographic Journal, 41(3), 229–244.
Lloyd, R. E. (2005). Attention on maps. Cartographic Perspectives, 52, 28–57.
MacEachren, A. M., & Mistrick, T. A. (1992). The role of brightness differences in figure-ground: Is darker figure? The Cartographic Journal, 29(2), 91–100.
Midtbø, T., & Nordvik, T. (2007). Effects of animations in zooming and panning operations on web maps: A web-based experiment. The Cartographic Journal, 44(4), 292–303.
Neun, M., Burghardt, D., & Weibel, R. (2008). Automated processing for map generalization using web services. GeoInformatica, 13(4), 425–452.
Nivala, A.-M., & Sarjakoski, T. L. (2007). User aspects of adaptive visualization for mobile maps. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 34(4), 275–284.
Peterson, G. (2009). GIS cartography: A guide to effective map design. CRC Press. http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/book/10.1201/9781420082142.
Peterson, M. P. (2009). The brave new world of online mapping. In Proceedings of ICC. http://icaci.org/files/documents/ICC_proceedings/ICC2009/html/nonref/13_16.pdf.
Roth, R. E., & Ross, K. S. (2009). Extending the Google maps API for event animation mashups. Cartographic Perspectives, 64, 21–40.
Stigmar, H., & Harrie, L. (2011). Evaluation of analytical measures of map legibility. The Cartographic Journal, 48(1), 41–53.
Su, B., Li, Z., Lodwick, G., & Muller, J.-C. (1997). Algebraic models for the aggregation of area features based upon morphological operators. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 11(3), 233–246.
Tauscher, S., & Neumann, K. (2016). A displacement method for maps showing dense sets of points of interest. In G. Gartner, M. Jobst, & H. Huang (Eds.), Progress in cartography (pp. 3–16). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Ware, J. M., & Jones, C. B. (n.d.). Conflict reduction in map generalization using iterative improvement. GeoInformatica, 2(4), 383–407.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dumpor, D., Midtbø, T. (2017). The Apprehension of Overlaid Information in a Web Map. In: Peterson, M. (eds) Advances in Cartography and GIScience. ICACI 2017. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57336-6_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57336-6_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-57335-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-57336-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)