Spatial Knowledge Acquisition with Mobile Maps: Effects of Map Size on Users’ Wayfinding Performance with Interactive Interfaces
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this work, it's been investigated the effect of map size and type of the interface when performing spatial searches in maps with a mobile device. A laboratory experiment is carried out with three map sizes and two interfaces prepared to be tested by a series of participants. These participants are given a set of tasks to perform. An analysis of time spent in the achievement of these tasks a series of conclusions are drawn, about performance, preferences etc.
I find the work interesting and it has been carried out properly. I believe that at the present time this type of study is necessary. However, although the work is well explained, I still have some doubts that I have not finished clarifying by reading the document. I think it necessary to review them to make it clear these kind of issues that may arise to the reader of the paper.
1) I believe that it is not completely clear how the experiment is carried out in the laboratory. A photograph of the moment could help.
2) In the experiment, the participants used the mobile device in which the map was displayed. Was it not possible to zoom in the map? I understood that was the case but I cannot be sure. Please explain it better.
3) The scale of the maps:
3.1) The differences between the maps are not well explained. One map is big, one map is medium-size and another one is small. But all three maps are at the same scale and therefore the larger one shows a larger area and therefore more information at the same level of detail? (That would explain what is indicated in line 264.)
3.2) If so, how are the spots and routes to be tested chosen in these three maps? Are they the same in all three cases? Are different?
3.3) If the maps were at different scales to properly adapt their content to those different map sizes, do they show the same information? Or does he large scale map have more information richness and more information density, so a higher level of detail, as usually happens?
4) The loading time is not affecting the map display? Is it the map previously loaded in the device and therefore does not intervene in the study as a factor? I suppose it is like this, but I would like it to be specified so that there is no doubt.
I would also like to comment that there are several references that come without a date (for example 16, 18, 22... ). This needs to be corrected.
There are also some sentences (30 or 100 for example) with small errors that require a review of the writing.
For the moment this is all
Thank you for your work
Author Response
Response to Review Comments
We are thankful for the time and efforts of the editor and reviewers. The review comments are valuable for us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have considered and addressed all the comments from the reviewers and the detailed point-to-point response is given below in red. The changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
General Comment:
In this work, it's been investigated the effect of map size and type of the interface when performing spatial searches in maps with a mobile device. A laboratory experiment is carried out with three map sizes and two interfaces prepared to be tested by a series of participants. These participants are given a set of tasks to perform. An analysis of time spent in the achievement of these tasks a series of conclusions are drawn, about performance, preferences etc.
I find the work interesting and it has been carried out properly. I believe that at the present time this type of study is necessary. However, although the work is well explained, I still have some doubts that I have not finished clarifying by reading the document. I think it necessary to review them to make it clear these kind of issues that may arise to the reader of the paper.
Response：We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. Your comment is valuable for us.
Point 1: 1) I believe that it is not completely clear how the experiment is carried out in the laboratory. A photograph of the moment could help.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. The corresponding figure (Figure 6 in the revised manuscript) has been added as suggested.
Figure 6. The experiment was conducted in a laboratory: (a) (b) the main session; (c)(d) the warm-up session; (e) a working depth camera.
Point 2: 2) In the experiment, the participants used the mobile device in which the map was displayed. Was it not possible to zoom in the map? I understood that was the case but I cannot be sure. Please explain it better.
Response 2: In the present experiment, the participants are unable to make zoom in/out operations on the map. Technically speaking, zoom in/out is a mature function that can be programmed in advance. However, we have not provided this function in the present experiment. Several studies [1, 2] indicated that zooming in/out the maps could cause the initial location to quickly move into the off-screen space. Because of this, we believe that using the zooming function may cause annoying and disorienting for users. At the current stage, due to the time limitation, this paper focuses on the current study now. Your valuable suggestion will be considered in our future work.
[1] Büring, T., Gerken, J., & Reiterer, H. (2008). Zoom interaction design for pen-operated portable devices. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(8), 605-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.03.005
[2] Burigat, S., Chittaro, L., & Parlato, E. (2008). Map, diagram, and web page navigation on mobile devices: the effectiveness of zoomable user interfaces with overviews. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Point 3: 3) The scale of the maps:
3.1) The differences between the maps are not well explained. One map is big, one map is medium-size and another one is small. But all three maps are at the same scale and therefore the larger one shows a larger area and therefore more information at the same level of detail? (That would explain what is indicated in line 264.)
3.2) If so, how are the spots and routes to be tested chosen in these three maps? Are they the same in all three cases? Are different?
3.3) If the maps were at different scales to properly adapt their content to those different map sizes, do they show the same information? Or does he large scale map have more information richness and more information density, so a higher level of detail, as usually happens?
Response 3: Line 369-373 in the discussion section has been revised. We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. In this experiment, we proposed three different map sizes for participants. The aspects of maps' ratio are the same, as well as the content of the maps, i.e., the targets and routes. Therefore, when using a mobile device to view the map, the details of a smaller map are relatively more distinct and clear to the users. This is a possible reason for why a larger map often takes the user a longer time to complete the task, and the main effect results of map size indicated the significant difference.
“A possible explanation for the generated results is that when viewing a different size map with the limited screen size of a mobile device, although the maps' ratio aspects are the same, the smaller map reveals more content than a larger one. This may be the reason why it took less time to complete the tasks with the smaller map.”
Point 4: 4) The loading time is not affecting the map display? Is it the map previously loaded in the device and therefore does not intervene in the study as a factor? I suppose it is like this, but I would like it to be specified so that there is no doubt.
Response 4: Thank you for your comments. The experiment has been programmed in advance using the C++ language. The program will be loaded in advance before the experimental process without affecting the users.
Point 5: I would also like to comment that there are several references that come without a date (for example 16, 18, 22... ). This needs to be corrected. There are also some sentences (30 or 100 for example) with small errors that require a review of the writing.
Response 5: We have revised the references. The manuscript has been proofread by my colleague, who is a native speaker of English. The manuscript has been iteratively proofread by all the co-authors, as well.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
I enjoyed the presented topic and I appreciate your more or less factual writing style.
However, I would recommend to omit comments which are not directly connected to the research topic and are semantically emptid.
E.g. raw 43 “Future research can benefit from the findings of the present study.”
or
raw 396 “,,,may consider using eye-tracking methodologies to investigate the user's visual search behavior of wayfinding...”
or
raw 117 “Coluccia, et al. [31] asked participants to study and draw a map and complete the spatial knowledge tasks.”
The sentence above has any value for a reader because you are only mentioning an existing study without any findings or any direct connection to your experiment.
I suppose that the strongest aspect of your paper lies in your research design and I would recommend to concentrate attention of the readers above all on the variables which are elaborated in your study: alternative ways of user interface, map size and type of the tasks.
There are some other issues which should be solved before the manuscript will be ready for publication.
- raw 100 “Therefore, Therefore, based on the studies mentioned above, this study's”
- raw 42 “Future research can benefit from the findings of the present study 7”...
I would like to know what are the outputs of your previous study and how is current study connected with the previous one and if the results from both studies are in consonance.
I was not able to find in the references the year of the mentioned study and other specifications.
I would recommend to present all five performance tasks in the same way, e.g. like in the case of the fourth task (including the figure). Or, it could be helpful to have just one aggregate table for all subtests in order to get the global overview over results.
I am missing more clear explanation regarding to inconclusive results among individual subtests (comparing panning and peep-hole)
In the study were compared peep-hole and panning without possibility of zooming, right? Are authors aware of similar studies (comparing both user interfaces) in which it was possible to zoom a map at the same time? Would authors expect any effects by using both, panning and zooming in the comparison with peep-hole?
Author Response
Response to Review Comments
We are thankful for the time and efforts of the editor and reviewers. The review comments are valuable for us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have considered and addressed all the comments from the reviewers and the detailed point-to-point response is given below in red. The changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
General Comment:
I enjoyed the presented topic and I appreciate your more or less factual writing style.
Response：Thank you for the positive comment that has encouraged us.
Point 1: However, I would recommend to omit comments which are not directly connected to the research topic and are semantically emptid. E.g. raw 43 “Future research can benefit from the findings of the present study.” or raw 396 “,,,may consider using eye-tracking methodologies to investigate the user's visual search behavior of wayfinding...” or raw 117 “Coluccia, et al. [31] asked participants to study and draw a map and complete the spatial knowledge tasks.” The sentence above has any value for a reader because you are only mentioning an existing study without any findings or any direct connection to your experiment. I suppose that the strongest aspect of your paper lies in your research design and I would recommend to concentrate attention of the readers above all on the variables which are elaborated in your study: alternative ways of user interface, map size and type of the tasks.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion. We agree with the reviewer that concentrating on the variables in this study. The sentences mentioned by the reviewer have been revised and semantically emptied sentences have been deleted.
Point 2: - raw 100 “Therefore, Therefore, based on the studies mentioned above, this study's” - raw 42 “Future research can benefit from the findings of the present study 7”... I would like to know what are the outputs of your previous study and how is current study connected with the previous one and if the results from both studies are in consonance.
Response 2: The preliminary work mentioned in the manuscript was a 2 x 2 experiment. The participants were invited to complete four wayfinding tasks. The system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire was adopted for the research. It represents a preliminary study that was used to share ideas with our colleagues in this field at a conference. The conclusion that peephole performs superiorly is consistent with the result of the current work. In the preliminary work, experienced users and inexperienced users were divided into two groups. The preliminary work focuses on how users' wayfinding experiences can affect their wayfinding performance.
Point 3: I was not able to find in the references the year of the mentioned study and other specifications.
Response 3: Thank you for your comments. The references have been revised.
Point 4: I would recommend to present all five performance tasks in the same way, e.g. like in the case of the fourth task (including the figure). Or, it could be helpful to have just one aggregate table for all subtests in order to get the global overview over results.
Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. An additional section 5.3 and an aggregate Table 7 have been added in the revised manuscript to explain this. The table illustrates the overall overview of the results.
5.3. Summary of Task Performance Time and the System Usability Scale Questionnaire Results
Table 7 shows a summary of the performance time for tasks 1-5 and the SUS questionnaire results. It reveals that the main effect of the interactive interface shows a significant difference regarding task 1, 5, and SUS. The participants adopting the peephole interface always perform better than those using the panning interface. The participants using the peephole interface usually obtain higher SUS scores than those using the panning interface. Besides, the main effects of map size were observed a significant difference in task 1, 3, and 4. The time to complete a task based on a larger map is significantly longer than that based on a smaller map. Moreover, in task 4, the variables of interactive interface and map size reveal a significant interaction effect. The participants spend a shorter task time completing the wayfinding task with the medium and small map size when using the peephole than the panning interface. On the contrary, in terms of the large map size, the results reveal that the participants take a longer task time when using the peephole than the panning interface.
Table 7. Summary of Task Performance Time and SUS Results.
|
Task / SUS |
Main Effect |
Interaction Effect |
|
|
Interactive interface |
Map size |
||
|
Task 1 |
Peephole＜Panning |
Small＜Large; Medium＜Large |
|
|
Task 2 |
|
|
|
|
Task 3 |
|
Small＜Large; Medium＜Large |
|
|
Task 4 |
|
Small＜Large |
Large Size: Panning＜Peephole; Medium Size: Peephole＜Panning; Small Size: Peephole＜Panning |
|
Task 5 |
Peephole＜Panning |
|
|
|
SUS |
Peephole＜Panning |
|
|
Point 5: I am missing more clear explanation regarding to inconclusive results among individual subtests (comparing panning and peep-hole)
Response 5: Thank you for your comments. There were no inconclusive results in this study. In terms of the task 2, 3, 4 regarding distance judgment, landmark recognition, and map section rotation, the main effect of interactive interface exhibits no significant difference between panning and peephole.
Point 6: In the study were compared peep-hole and panning without possibility of zooming, right? Are authors aware of similar studies (comparing both user interfaces) in which it was possible to zoom a map at the same time? Would authors expect any effects by using both, panning and zooming in the comparison with peep-hole?
Response 6: In this experiment, the participants would not be able to implement zoom in the map. Technically, zooming is an available function that can be programmed in advance. However, we have not considered this function involved in the experiment. Several studies [1, 2] indicated that zooming out the maps caused the initial location to quickly move into the off-screen space. We believe using the zooming function may cause annoying and disorienting for users. In this stage, due to the time constraint, this manuscript focuses on the current research content. Your valuable suggestion will be considered in our future work.
[1] Büring, T., Gerken, J., & Reiterer, H. (2008). Zoom interaction design for pen-operated portable devices. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(8), 605-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.03.005
[2] Burigat, S., Chittaro, L., & Parlato, E. (2008). Map, diagram, and web page navigation on mobile devices: the effectiveness of zoomable user interfaces with overviews. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
An interesting study regarding the importance of interfaces for wayfinding. The reserach problem, state of the art and methodology are well explained. However, it could be of interest to state whether the person is walking, biking or driving. Indeed, some knowledge chunks can be different, for instance biking paths or one-way streets.
Typos:
Line 16, 103: the reviewer is not familiar SUS questionnaire ???? Definition too late (line 151)
line 100: therefore (2 times)
Figure 2: figures too small to be readable at scale 1; please enlarge or reorganize the figure
Line 168: I was not aware of the meaning of the word "heiti". I went to a dictionary to look for the meaning. I suppose a lot of readers will have the same difficulty. Please, give a definition, or use another more common word.
Line 185, I suppose you mean Figure 3????
Author Response
Response to Review Comments
We are thankful for the time and efforts of the editor and reviewers. The review comments are valuable for us to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have considered and addressed all the comments from the reviewers and the detailed point-to-point response is given below in red. The changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
General Comment:
An interesting study regarding the importance of interfaces for wayfinding. The reserach problem, state of the art and methodology are well explained. However, it could be of interest to state whether the person is walking, biking or driving. Indeed, some knowledge chunks can be different, for instance biking paths or one-way streets.
Response：Your comment is valuable to us. According to your advice, we amended the relevant part of the manuscript. The experiment was conducted in a laboratory. A figure 6 of the experiment scene has been added to the revised manuscript. We agree with the reviewer that it will be interesting to consider different scenarios, which will implicate other wayfinding knowledge. At the current stage, due to the limited time, this study focuses on the current work. Your valuable suggestion will be considered in our future work.
Figure 6. The experiment was conducted in a laboratory: (a) (b) the main session; (c)(d) the warm-up session; (e) a working depth camera.
Point 1: Typos: Line 16, 103: the reviewer is not familiar SUS questionnaire ???? Definition too late (line 151)
Response 1: Line 103, an added reference has been cited to explain the system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire.
Point 2: Typos: line 100: therefore (2 times)
Response 2: Line 100, the typo has been corrected.
Point 3: Typos: Line 168: I was not aware of the meaning of the word "heiti". I went to a dictionary to look for the meaning. I suppose a lot of readers will have the same difficulty. Please, give a definition, or use another more common word.
Response 3: Line 170. We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. It has been revised to “gothic typeface”.
Point 4: Typos: Line 185, I suppose you mean Figure 3????
Response 4: Line 183. Thank you for your comments. The typo has been corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
