This study aims to investigate how design features and cross-culture factors affect the usability of web maps. Twelve volunteers performed two scenario-based tasks using three web maps in a Windows environment. There were four dependent variables: completion time, number of clicks, success rate and workload. Results revealed that different design features significantly affected users’ performances.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArlethM. (1999, August). Problems in screen map design. In Proceedings of the 19th International Cartographic Conference, Ottawa, Canada (Vol. 1, pp. 849-857).
2.
CyrD.Trevor-SmithH. (2004). Localization of Web design: An empirical comparison of German, Japanese, and United States Web site characteristics. Journal of the American society for information science and technology, 55(13), 1199-1208.
3.
CyrD.BonanniC.BowesJ.IlseverJ. (2005) Beyond Trust: Website Design Preferences across Cultures, Journal of Global Information Management, 13, 4, 24–52.
4.
CyrD. (2013). Website design, trust and culture: An eight country investigation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(6), 373-385.
5.
DixA.FinlayJ.AbowdG. D.BealeR. (2004). Human Computer Interface.
6.
DykesJ.MacEachrenA. M.KraakM. J. (2005). Visualizing, querying and summarizing individual spatio-temporal behaviour.
7.
FrankeR. H.HofstedeG.BondM. H. (1991). Cultural roots of economic performance: A research notea. Strategic management journal, 12(S1), 165-173.
8.
GORDON-BECKERS. E.LeeJ. D.LiuY.WickensC. D. (2004). An introduction to Human Factors Engineering.
9.
HaklayM.TobónC. (2003). Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centred design approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(6), 577-592.
10.
HaklayM.ZafiriA. (2008). Usability engineering for GIS: learning from a screenshot. The Cartographic Journal, 45(2), 87-97.
11.
HallM.De JongM.SteehouderM. (2004). Cultural differences and usability evaluation: Individualistic and collectivistic participants compared. Technical communication, 51(4), 489-503.
12.
HorreyW. J.WickensC. D. (2004). Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality. Human factors, 46(4), 611-624.
13.
HarrowerM.KellerC. P.HockingD. (1997). Cartography on the Internet: Thoughts and a preliminary user survey. Cartographic Perspectives, (26), 27-37.
14.
HarrowerM.SheesleyB. (2005). Designing better map interfaces: A framework for panning and zooming. Transactions in GIS, 9(2), 77-89.
15.
KouaE. L.KraakM. J. (2004). Geovisualization to support the exploration of large health and demographic survey data. International Journal of Health Geographics, 3(1), 12.
16.
LinX. H.ChoongY-Y.SalvendyG. (1997) ‘A Proposed Index of Usability: A Method for Comparing the Relative Usability of Different Software Systems’, Behaviour and Information Technology, 16(4/5), 267–278.
17.
MacEachrenA. M.KraakM. J. (2001). Research challenges in geovisualization. Cartography and geographic information science, 28(1), 3-12.
18.
NielsenJ. (1993) Usability Engineering, San Diego, Academic Press.
19.
NivalaA. M.SarjakoskiL. T.SarjakoskiT. (2007). Usability methods’ familiarity among map application developers. International journal of human-computer studies, 65(9), 784-795.
20.
SkarlatidouA.HaklayM. (2006). Public web mapping: preliminary usability evaluation.
21.
Van ElzakkerC. P. J. M. (2005, July). From map use research to usability research in geo-information processing. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Cartographic Conference, A Coruna, Spain.
22.
UnwinD. (2005) ‘Fiddling on a different planet’, Geoforum, 36, 681–6.
ZhangZ.BasiliV.ShneidermanB. (1998, October). An empirical study of perspective-based usability inspection. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 42, No. 19, pp. 1346-1350). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
