Augmented paper maps: Design of POI markers and effects on group navigation

Abstract

One popular and wide use of augmented-reality based application, is the projection of points of interests on top of the phones’ camera view. In this paper we discuss the implementation of an AR application that acts as a magic lens over printed maps, overlaying POIs and routes. This method expands the information space available to members of groups during navigation, partially mitigating the issue of several group members trying to share a small screen device. We examine two aspects critical to the use of augmented paper maps: (a) Appropriate visualisation of POIs to facilitate selection and (b) augmentation of paper maps with route instructions for use in group situations. In this paper, we evaluate POI visualisation in a lab setting and augmented paper map navigation with groups of real tourists in a preliminary field trial. Our work complements existing literature introducing self-reporting questionnaires to measure affective state and user experience during navigation.

Keywords

Augmented reality group navigation mobile maps tourism augmented maps

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams and

A.L.

Cox, Questionnaires, indepth interviews and focus groups, in: Research Methods for Human Computer Interaction,

Cairns and

A.L.

Cox, eds, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2008, pp. 17–34. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511814570.003.

Bouwer,

Nack and

Evers, Towards support for collaborative navigation in complex indoor environments, in: Proc. CSCW, 2011, pp. 601–604.

Brown and

Chalmers, Tourism and mobile technology, in: Proc. ECSCW, 2003, pp. 335–354.

Chittaro, Visualizing information on mobile devices, Computer39(3) (2006), 40–45. doi:10.1109/MC.2006.109.

Čopič Pucihar,

Coulton and

Alexander, The use of surrounding visual context in handheld AR: Device vs. user perspective rendering, in: Proc. CHI, 2014, pp. 197–206.

Delikostidis,

C.P.

van Elzakker and

M.J.

Kraak, Overcoming challenges in developing more usable pedestrian navigation systems, Cartography and Geographic Information Science (2015), 1–19.

Dünser,

Billinghurst,

Wen,

Lehtinen and

Nurminen, Exploring the use of handheld AR for outdoor navigation, Computers & Graphics36(8) (2012), 1084–1095. doi:10.1016/j.cag.2012.10.001.

Elias and

Paelke, User-centered design of landmark visualisations, in: Map-Based Mobile Services, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 33–56. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-37110-6_3.

Grubert,

Pahud,

Grasset,

Schmalstieg and

Seichter, The utility of magic lens interfaces on handheld devices for touristic map navigation, Pervasive and Mobile Computing18 (2014), 88–103.

10.

Hile,

Vedantham,

Cuellar,

Liu,

Gelfand,

Grzeszczuk and

Borriello, Landmark-based pedestrian navigation from collections of geotagged photos, in: Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, ACM, 2008, pp. 145–152.

11.

Huang and

Gartner, A technical survey on decluttering of icons in online map-based mashups, in: Online Maps with APIs and WebServices, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 157–175. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27485-5_11.

12.

Laugwitz,

Held and

Schrepp, Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire, in: HCI and Usability for Education and Work,

Holzinger, ed., Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 2008, pp. 63–76. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6.

13.

Komninos,

Besharat and

Garofalakis, Use of self-reporting questionnaires to evaluate augmented paper maps for group navigation, in: European Conference on Ambient Intelligence, Springer International Publishing, Athens, 2015, pp. 125–137. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26005-1_9.

14.

J.D.

Mayer and

Y.N.

Gaschke, The experience and meta-experience of mood, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology55 (1988), 102–111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.102.

15.

Morrison,

Oulasvirta,

Peltonen,

Lemmela,

Jacucci,

Reitmayr and

Juustila, Like bees around the hive: A comparative study of a mobile augmented reality map, in: Proc. CHI, 2009, pp. 1889–1898.

16.

Morrison,

Mulloni,

Lemmelä,

Oulasvirta,

Jacucci,

Peltonen and

Re- genbrecht, Collaborative use of mobile augmented reality with paper maps, Computers & Graphics35(4) (2011), 789–799. doi:10.1016/j.cag.2011.04.009.

17.

Müller,

Jentsch,

Kray and

Krüger, Exploring factors that influence the combined use of mobile devices and public displays for pedestrian navigation, in: Proc. NordiCHI, 2008, pp. 308–317. doi:10.1145/1463160.1463194.

18.

Norrie and

Signer, Overlaying paper maps with digital information services for tourists, in: Proc. ICTT, 2005, pp. 23–33.

19.

Raita, User interviews revisited: Identifying user positions and system interpretations, in: Proc. NordiCHI, 2012, pp. 675–682. doi:10.1145/2399016.2399119.

20.

Reilly,

Mackay,

Watters and

Inkpen, Planners, navigators, and pragmatists: collaborative wayfinding using a single mobile phone, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing13(4) (2009), 321–329. doi:10.1007/s00779-008-0207-2.

21.

Rohs,

Schöning,

Raubal,

Essl and

Krüger, Map navigation with mobile devices: Virtual versus physical movement with and without visual context, in: Proc. ICMI, 2007, pp. 146–153. doi:10.1145/1322192.1322219.

22.

Schrepp,

Hinderks and

Thomaschewski, Applying the user experience questionnaire (UEQ) in different evaluation scenarios, in: HCI, Vol. 8, 2014, pp. 383–392.

23.

Stroila,

Mays,

Gale and

Bach, Augmented transit maps, in: Proc. WACV, 2011, pp. 485–490.

24.

Teevan,

Karlson,

Amini,

A.J.

Brush and

Krumm, Understanding the importance of location, time, and people in mobile local search behavior, in: Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, ACM, 2011, pp. 77–80.

25.

K.S.

Willis,

Hölscher,

Wilbertz and

Li, A comparison of spatial knowledge acquisition with maps and mobile maps, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems33(2) (2009), 100–110. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2009.01.004.