EVALUATION OF MOBILE DEVICE INDOOR MAPS FOR ORIENTATION TASKS

Sarot, Rhaíssa Viana; Delazari, Luciene Stamato

doi:10.1590/s1982-21702018000400034

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Boletim de Ciências Geodésicas

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ARTICLE • Bol. Ciênc. Geod. 24 (4) • Dec 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/s1982-21702018000400034 copy

EVALUATION OF MOBILE DEVICE INDOOR MAPS FOR ORIENTATION TASKS

Avaliação de Mapas Indoor em Dispositivos Móveis para Tarefas de orientação

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This research investigates subjective user preference for using Floor Plans and Schematic Maps in an indoor environment, and how users locate and orient themselves when using these representations. We sought to verify the efficiency of these two kinds of digital maps and evaluate which elements found in physical environments and which elements found in the representations influence the user spatial orientation process. Users answered questions and performed orientation tasks which indicated their level of familiarity with the area being studied, their understanding of the symbology used, and their identification of Points of Interest (POI) in the environment. The initial results indicated a preference for the Schematic Map, because users thought that the symbology used on the map adopted was easy to understand.

Keywords
Indoor mapping; Mobile devices; Spatial orientation

Elements	Attributes	Graphic primitive
		Floor plans	Schematic Map
Rooms	Classroom/ Laboratories/ Offices/ Services stores/ Others	Area	Point
Corridors	Free access/ Restricted access	Line	Line
Bathroom	Ladies room/ Men room/ Disabled bathroom	Area	Point
Stairs		Point	Point
Way out		Point	Point
Lift		Point	Point

Stage 2 Results
Q1: Scores below 5 indicate signs of aversion or apprehension in the use of maps. Some factors responsible for this are difficulty in reading maps, lack of experience of using maps, and difficulty in paying attention and concentrating on accomplishing tasks with maps.
Q2: A Group I user mentioned that he did not have the habit of using maps due to the lack of the need to use maps in his work.
Q3: The users mentioned that despite having difficulties in some cases, they did not consider them to be an impediment to performing the geographic tasks.
Q4: Users opting for “paper maps” were motivated by the tactile impression sensation which, according to them, makes it easy to handle maps. Users opting for “digital maps” mentioned having the habit of searching for addresses on the Internet, and problems with using digital maps (Internet signal loss and device batteries running low).
Q5: Users answering “Yes, a few times” mentioned that despite lack of contact with the tools, they understood their functionalities. Having a basic notion of tool functioning facilitates user interaction with the map, because they have already gone through the stage of learning functions and how to use tools.
Q6: Users answering “rarely” used mobile devices just for calls and SMS messages. Lack of habit of using devices can hinder access to information on the map and alter the user’s behavior (feelings of frustration and irritability).
Q7: Users with scores below 5 showed difficulties in handling devices because of their age and lack of practice. They also mentioned feeling uncomfortable feeling when being forced to use them.

Stage 3 Results
Q1: 12 users were aware of existence of indoor maps but did not use them because they did not know where to find them in the building. They preferred to learn about the environment by walking between spaces.
Q2: Users answering “Rarely” mentioned that they use verbal information from third parties to get orientation and reach their destination. Users answering “Sometimes” mentioned being able to achieve orientation in noncomplex structures with spaces subdivided by categories (food court, leisure, sales). Users answering “Frequently” mentioned looking for information signs and patterns in the structure.
Q3: In relation to the option "Sometimes, but only the first time I visit the place", despite feeling disorientated, users considered it to be normal to get lost in places they are not familiar with. Groups I and II have similar characteristics. For this reason, we believe that none of the map evaluation results have been favored due to ease of user orientation.
Q4: Users answering "Maybe" and "Confident" mentioned looking through the window to find spatial reference points outside the building (streets, shops, squares, among others).

Stage 4 Results
Q1: Users answering “Never” had gone to the building just to perform the test. Users answering "Rarely" and "Sometimes" did not usually walk in the area being studied. Users answering "Frequently" believed they could orient and navigate themselves in the building because they had prior knowledge of it.
Q2: Users answering “Yes” mentioned that even though they knew the building structure and its rooms, they found it difficult to understand the environment and how it functioned.
Q3: The user who answered “None” mentioned being in the building just to do the test. Users opting for “The whole building” thought they walked throughout the entire building on a daily basis. Users opting for “A specific floor or environment” stated doing tasks at least twice a week in the area. Users answering “specific rooms and places” walked in the area only when looking for specific things there.
Q4: Users answering “Confident” believed that they knew the area being studied. Users selecting “Maybe” had a notion of the location of the building’s sectors and blocks.
Q5: Users answering "Frequently" mentioned the importance of updated information signs with easy visual identification as well as adequate symbology in the building. Users answering “Sometimes” mentioned using the signs when performing searching tasks in the environment.
Q6: Users answering “Frequently” and "Sometimes" looked for direction patterns in the corridors and/or looked through the windows at outdoor objects in order to locate themselves.

Stage 5 Results
Q1: At the beginning of the test users had to indicate their initial position in the building, in order to move to the area represented on the map. Factors associated with lack of attention as well as mental confusion related to the structural complexity of the building were mentioned by users who stated having difficulties in accomplishing the task. In Group I, an “Experient User” and a “User with no experience” rotated the position of the cartographic base through 180° (opposite to pointing north). As a result, they pointed incorrectly to their current position. The users stated that the mistake happened owing to lack of attention, as they confused the outline of the building’s blocks.
Q2: Users had to find the area represented by the map and go to the place indicated. After finding the place, they had to point to elements they had seen in the environment and that were present on the map. Users answering “I did not accomplish the task” did not use the feature attribute visualization resource on the map. They walked to the place they thought was indicated on the map based on counting the blocks of the building. All users frequently looked through the window in search of elements that could help with the task.
Q3: Users received the information that some corridors might have access restrictions, but that their use was not prohibited. As such, they had to point on the map to corridors possibly having “Free” or “Restricted” access. Group II users who answered “I did not accomplish the task” said that they did not realize that the differentiated colors categorized “Restricted” (red) and “Free” (green) routes.
Q4: Starting from the same point, users had to walk to the closest restroom (female/ male/ special use) with free access and were allowed to walk on and between both floors of the building. When answering “I did not accomplish the task”, a Group I user stated having problems in understanding the restrictions shown by the symbology and felt frustrated about the time wasted in order to understand it. After failing to find the restroom the user quit the task. When answering “I have difficulties in accomplishing the task”, users mentioned time wasted in order to understanding the symbology. They accomplished the task at the second attempt, after using the change floors and select attributes tools. Users answering "I accomplished the task" considered themselves to be disoriented when using the ‘change floors’ tool.
Q5: The users started from position A (stationery shop) and had to walk to position B (Environmental Engineering Course Office), being provided with information about the floor and name of the place. When answering "I did not accomplish the task", the Group II “User with no experience” mentioned a feeling of disorientation after changing floors. The Group I “Experienced user” had problems in relating the room symbology on map with the places in the environment and did not accomplish the task. When answering "I have difficulties in accomplishing the task", the "Experienced user" group did not use the map to get orientation because they thought they knew the area being studied. When they got lost, they used the map. The Group I "Users with no experience" overlapped the two floors of the building and after finding their position in the building, they rotated the map to the direction that they should take to get to point B. All users who answered "I accomplished the task" had problems in finding their initial position on the map after changing floors. Three of the Group I "Experienced users" did not use the map rotation tool and mentioned that they felt confused when using it.
Q6: From Position B users had to walk to the next exit on the “Free” or “Restricted” map. In order to accomplish the task, users had to change the floor (storey) on the map and identify the symbol used for the nearest “Exit” feature. Users who answered "I did not accomplish the task" walked to the corridors on the ground floor and pointed the first exit that they saw without using the map. Users answering "I have difficulties in accomplishing the task" had problems in relating the representation symbology to the physical exit, because the exit was blocked at the time of the test. The four users who answered "I accomplished the task" searched for the exit symbol on the second floor.

Stage 5 Results

Q7: The question determined the level of importance of the spatial reference points used in the spatial orientation process. Out of the sample of thirty, twenty-three users said that they frequently used the points that they judged to be easy to visualize, such as restrooms, stairs. And seven users mentioned just using the reference points to determine their current position on the map, such as when changing floors.

Q8: As part of the map assessment, users had to describe their degree of difficulty in reading and understanding the map by giving scores from 0 to 10 (Easy=0 and Difficult=10). The “Experienced users’” scores varied greatly. Three people who used the Floor Plan classified its difficultly with a score of 8, while the three people who used the Schematic Map classified its difficulty with a score of 3. The variation between scores can be seen in the “User with no experience” column. The minimum Group I score was 2 and the maximum was 8, different to Group II which did not have large variations in the degree of difficulty, having a maximum score of 2 and a minimum of 0.

Options	Total	Options	Total	Options	Total	Options	Total
Stairs	24	Services stores	13	Bathroom	17	Way out	2
Lift	1	Laboratories	8	Classroom	16

Options	Total	Options	Total
Name	24	Floor	28
Type	23	Access (free/restricted)	18
Others		Others
Class Room	2	Café/restaurant	1
Stairs	4	Google base map	1
Corridors	1	Fire equipment	1
Signs (information/directions)	5	Building visual identification	1
Bathroom	2

Universidade Federal do Paraná Centro Politécnico, Jardim das Américas, 81531-990 Curitiba - Paraná - Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 41) 3361-3637 - Curitiba - PR - Brazil
E-mail: bcg_editor@ufpr.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS