Document Open Access Logo

The Future of Geographic Information Displays from GIScience, Cartographic, and Cognitive Science Perspectives (Vision Paper)

Authors Tyler Thrash , Sara Lanini-Maggi , Sara I. Fabrikant , Sven Bertel, Annina Brügger , Sascha Credé , Cao Tri Do, Georg Gartner , Haosheng Huang , Stefan Münzer, Kai-Florian Richter

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.COSIT.2019.19.pdf
  • Filesize: 300 kB
  • 11 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Tyler Thrash
  • Department of Geography / Digital Society, Initiative, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Sara Lanini-Maggi
  • Department of Geography / Digital Society, Initiative, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Sara I. Fabrikant
  • Department of Geography / Digital Society, Initiative, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Sven Bertel
  • Center for Interaction, Visualization, and Usability, Hochschule Flensburg, Germany
Annina Brügger
  • Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Sascha Credé
  • Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Cao Tri Do
  • Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University of Zurich / ETH Zurich, Switzerland
Georg Gartner
  • Department of Geodesy and Geoinformation, TU Wien, Austria
Haosheng Huang
  • Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Stefan Münzer
  • Department of Psychology, University of Mannheim, Germany
Kai-Florian Richter
  • Department of Computing Science, Umea University, Sweden

Funding

  • Thrash, Tyler: Supported by the Digital Society Initiative and the ERC Advanced Grant GeoViSense.
  • Lanini-Maggi, Sara: Supported by the Digital Society Initiative and the ERC Advanced Grant GeoViSense.
  • Brügger, Annina: Supported by the Canton of Zurich.
  • Credé, Sascha: Supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation [156072].

Cite As Get BibTex

Tyler Thrash, Sara Lanini-Maggi, Sara I. Fabrikant, Sven Bertel, Annina Brügger, Sascha Credé, Cao Tri Do, Georg Gartner, Haosheng Huang, Stefan Münzer, and Kai-Florian Richter. The Future of Geographic Information Displays from GIScience, Cartographic, and Cognitive Science Perspectives (Vision Paper). In 14th International Conference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2019). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 142, pp. 19:1-19:11, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2019) https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.COSIT.2019.19

Abstract

With the development of modern geovisual analytics tools, several researchers have emphasized the importance of understanding users' cognitive, perceptual, and affective tendencies for supporting spatial decisions with geographic information displays (GIDs). However, most recent technological developments have focused on support for navigation in terms of efficiency and effectiveness while neglecting the importance of spatial learning. In the present paper, we will envision the future of GIDs that also support spatial learning in the context of large-scale navigation. Specifically, we will illustrate the manner in which GIDs have been (in the past) and might be (in the future) designed to be context-responsive, personalized, and supportive for active spatial learning from three different perspectives (i.e., GIScience, cartography, and cognitive science). We will also explain why this approach is essential for preventing the technological infantilizing of society (i.e., the reduction of our capacity to make decisions without technological assistance). Although these issues are common to nearly all emerging digital technologies, we argue that these issues become especially relevant in consideration of a person’s current and future locations.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Human-centered computing → Geographic visualization
Keywords
  • visual displays
  • geographic information
  • cartography
  • cognitive science

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Roba Abbas, Katina Michael, and MG Michael. The regulatory considerations and ethical dilemmas of location-based services (LBS). Information Technology & People, 27(1):2-20, February 2014. Google Scholar
  2. Jonathan Z Bakdash, Sally A Linkenauger, and Dennis Proffitt. Comparing decision-making and control for learning a virtual environment: Backseat drivers learn where they are going. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, volume 52, pages 2117-2121. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2008. Google Scholar
  3. Ceylan Z Balaban, Florian Roser, and Kai Hamburger. The effect of emotions and emotionally laden landmarks on wayfinding. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, volume 36, 2014. Google Scholar
  4. Andrea Ballatore and Michela Bertolotto. Personalizing Maps. Communications of the ACM, 58(12), 2015. Google Scholar
  5. Thomas Barkowsky, Longin Jan Latecki, and Kai-Florian Richter. Schematizing maps: Simplification of geographic shape by discrete curve evolution. In Spatial Cognition II, pages 41-53. Springer, 2000. Google Scholar
  6. Jacques Bertin, William J Berg, and Howard Wainer. Semiology of graphics: diagrams, networks, maps, volume 1. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, 1983. Google Scholar
  7. Annina Brügger, Kai-Florian Richter, and Sara Irina Fabrikant. How does navigation system behavior influence human behavior? Cognitive research: principles and implications, 4(1):5, 2019. Google Scholar
  8. Elizabeth R Chrastil and William H Warren. From cognitive maps to cognitive graphs. PloS ONE, 9(11):e112544, 2014. Google Scholar
  9. Jaewoo Chung, Francesco Pagnini, and Ellen Langer. Mindful navigation for pedestrians: Improving engagement with augmented reality. Technology in Society, 45:29-33, 2016. Google Scholar
  10. Ioannis Delikostidis, Corné P.J.M. van Elzakker, and Menno-Jan Kraak. Overcoming challenges in developing more usable pedestrian navigation systems. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 43(3):189-207, May 2016. Google Scholar
  11. Anind K Dey. Understanding and Using Context. Personal Ubiquitous Comput., 5(1):4-7, January 2001. Google Scholar
  12. David DiBiase, Alan M MacEachren, John B Krygier, and Catherine Reeves. Animation and the role of map design in scientific visualization. Cartography and geographic information systems, 19(4):201-214, 1992. Google Scholar
  13. Mica R Endsley. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human factors, 37(1):32-64, 1995. Google Scholar
  14. Aaron Gardony, Tad T Brunyé, Caroline R Mahoney, and Holly A Taylor. Affective states influence spatial cue utilization during navigation. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 20(3):223-240, 2011. Google Scholar
  15. Aaron L Gardony, Tad T Brunyé, Caroline R Mahoney, and Holly A Taylor. How navigational aids impair spatial memory: Evidence for divided attention. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 13(4):319-350, 2013. Google Scholar
  16. Aaron L Gardony, Tad T Brunyé, and Holly A Taylor. Navigational aids and spatial memory impairment: the role of divided attention. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 15(4):246-284, 2015. Google Scholar
  17. Georg Gartner. Putting Emotions in Maps – The Wayfinding Example, 2012. URL: http://www.mountaincartography.org/publications/papers/papers_taurewa_12/papers/mcw2012_sec3_ch08_p061-065_gartner.pdf.
  18. Klaus Gramann, Hermann J Müller, Eva-Maria Eick, and Bernd Schönebeck. Evidence of separable spatial representations in a virtual navigation task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(6):1199, 2005. Google Scholar
  19. Nathan Greenauer, Catherine Mello, Jonathan W Kelly, and Marios N Avraamides. Integrating spatial information across experiences. Psychological research, 77(5):540-554, 2013. Google Scholar
  20. Nathan Greenauer and David Waller. Intrinsic array structure is neither necessary nor sufficient for nonegocentric coding of spatial layouts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5):1015-1021, 2008. Google Scholar
  21. Amy L Griffin, Travis White, Carolyn Fish, Beate Tomio, Haosheng Huang, Claudia Robbi Sluter, João Vitor Meza Bravo, Sara I Fabrikant, Susanne Bleisch, Melissa Yamada, et al. Designing across map use contexts: a research agenda. International Journal of Cartography, 3(sup1):90-114, 2017. Google Scholar
  22. Mary Hegarty, Harvey S Smallman, Andrew T Stull, and Matt S Canham. Naïve cartography: How intuitions about display configuration can hurt performance. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 44(3):171-186, 2009. Google Scholar
  23. Douglas L Hintzman. " Schema abstraction" in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological review, 93(4):411, 1986. Google Scholar
  24. Haosheng Huang, Georg Gartner, Jukka M. Krisp, Martin Raubal, and Nico Van de Weghe. Location based services: ongoing evolution and research agenda. Journal of Location Based Services, 2018. Google Scholar
  25. Haosheng Huang, Manuela Schmidt, and Georg Gartner. Spatial Knowledge Acquisition with Mobile Maps, Augmented Reality and Voice in the Context of GPS-based Pedestrian Navigation: Results from a Field Test. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 39(2):107-116, January 2012. Google Scholar
  26. Janellen Huttenlocher, Larry V Hedges, and Susan Duncan. Categories and particulars: prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological review, 98(3):352, 1991. Google Scholar
  27. Toru Ishikawa and Daniel R Montello. Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cognitive psychology, 52(2):93-129, 2006. Google Scholar
  28. Amir-Homayoun Javadi, Beatrix Emo, Lorelei R Howard, Fiona E Zisch, Yichao Yu, Rebecca Knight, Joao Pinelo Silva, and Hugo J Spiers. Hippocampal and prefrontal processing of network topology to simulate the future. Nature communications, 8:14652, 2017. Google Scholar
  29. Peter Kiefer, Ioannis Giannopoulos, Vasileios Athanasios Anagnostopoulos, Johannes Schöning, and Martin Raubal. Controllability matters: The user experience of adaptive maps. GeoInformatica, 21(3):619-641, July 2017. URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10707-016-0282-x.
  30. Barend Köbben and Mustafa Yaman. Evaluating dynamic visual variables. In Proceedings of the seminar on teaching animated cartography, Madrid, Spain, pages 45-51, 1995. Google Scholar
  31. David Levinson. Perspectives on efficiency in transportation. International Journal of Transport Management, 1(3):145-155, 2003. Google Scholar
  32. Hengshan Li and Nicholas Giudice. Assessment of multi-level structural and topological properties on cognitive map development in multi-level built environments. In International Conference on Spatial Cognition 2016, 2016. Google Scholar
  33. Allen Yilun Lin, Kate Kuehl, Johannes Schöning, and Brent Hecht. Understanding “ Death by GPS ”: A Systematic Analysis of Catastrophic Incidents Associated with Personal Navigation Technologies. In CHI 2017, Denver, CO,USA, 2017. Google Scholar
  34. Alan M MacEachren, Robert E Roth, James O'Brien, Bonan Li, Derek Swingley, and Mark Gahegan. Visual semiotics & uncertainty visualization: An empirical study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(12):2496-2505, 2012. Google Scholar
  35. Sara Maggi, Sara Irina Fabrikant, Jean-Paul Imbert, and Christophe Hurter. How do display design and user characteristics matter in animations? An empirical study with air traffic control displays. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 51(1):25-37, 2016. Google Scholar
  36. Tobias Meilinger, Gerald Franz, and Heinrich H Bülthoff. From isovists via mental representations to behaviour: first steps toward closing the causal chain. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39(1):48-62, 2012. Google Scholar
  37. Daniel R Montello. Scale and multiple psychologies of space. In European conference on spatial information theory, pages 312-321. Springer, 1993. Google Scholar
  38. Daniel R Montello. Cognitive research in GIScience: Recent achievements and future prospects. Geography Compass, 3(5):1824-1840, 2009. Google Scholar
  39. Daniel R Montello. You are where? The function and frustration of you-are-here (YAH) maps. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 10(2-3):94-104, 2010. Google Scholar
  40. Weimin Mou and Timothy P McNamara. Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. Journal of experimental psychology: learning, memory, and cognition, 28(1):162, 2002. Google Scholar
  41. Stefan Münzer, Hubert D Zimmer, and Jörg Baus. Navigation assistance: A trade-off between wayfinding support and configural learning support. Journal of experimental psychology: applied, 18(1):18, 2012. Google Scholar
  42. Stefan Münzer, Hubert D Zimmer, Maximilian Schwalm, Jörg Baus, and Ilhan Aslan. Computer-assisted navigation and the acquisition of route and survey knowledge. Journal of environmental psychology, 26(4):300-308, 2006. Google Scholar
  43. Raja Parasuraman, Thomas B Sheridan, and Christopher D Wickens. A Model for Types and Levels of Human Interaction with Automation, 2000. Google Scholar
  44. Avi Parush, Shir Ahuvia, and Ido Erev. Degradation in spatial knowledge acquisition when using automatic navigation systems. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, pages 238-254. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  45. Patrick Péruch and Paul N Wilson. Active versus passive learning and testing in a complex outside built environment. Cognitive Processing, 5(4):218-227, 2004. Google Scholar
  46. Verena Radoczky. How to design a pedestrian navigation system for indoor and outdoor environments. In Location based services and telecartography, pages 301-316. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  47. Tumasch Reichenbacher. The concept of relevance in mobile maps. In Location based services and telecartography, pages 231-246. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  48. Gerhard Reitmayr and Dieter Schmalstieg. Collaborative augmented reality for outdoor navigation and information browsing. na, 2004. Google Scholar
  49. John J Rieser, Jeffrey J Lockman, and Herbert L Pick. The role of visual experience in knowledge of spatial layout. Perception & Psychophysics, 28(3):185-190, 1980. Google Scholar
  50. Ruth Rosenholtz, Yuanzhen Li, and Lisa Nakano. Measuring visual clutter. Journal of vision, 7(2):17-17, 2007. Google Scholar
  51. Robert E Roth. Visual Variables. International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, pages 1-11, 2016. Google Scholar
  52. Edward K Sadalla, W Jeffrey Burroughs, and Lorin J Staplin. Reference points in spatial cognition. Journal of experimental psychology: human learning and memory, 6(5):516, 1980. Google Scholar
  53. Annu-Maaria Sarjakoski L. Tiina and Nivala. Adaptation to Context — A Way to Improve the Usability of Mobile Maps. In T. Meng L. and Reichenbacher and Zipf A, editors, Map-based Mobile Services: Theories, Methods and Implementations, pages 107-123. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005. Google Scholar
  54. Mike Scaife and Yvonne Rogers. External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International journal of human-computer studies, 45(2):185-213, 1996. Google Scholar
  55. Victor R Schinazi and Russell A Epstein. Neural correlates of real-world route learning. Neuroimage, 53(2):725-735, 2010. Google Scholar
  56. Victor R Schinazi, Tyler Thrash, and Daniel-Robert Chebat. Spatial navigation by congenitally blind individuals. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 7(1):37-58, 2016. Google Scholar
  57. Amy L Shelton and Timothy P McNamara. Systems of spatial reference in human memory. Cognitive psychology, 43(4):274-310, 2001. Google Scholar
  58. Stephen RJ Sheppard and Petr Cizek. The ethics of Google Earth: Crossing thresholds from spatial data to landscape visualisation. Journal of environmental management, 90(6):2102-2117, 2009. Google Scholar
  59. T. B. Sheridan. Humans and automation: System design and research issues. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.., 2002. Google Scholar
  60. Alexander W Siegel and Sheldon H White. The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In Advances in child development and behavior, volume 10, pages 9-55. Elsevier, 1975. Google Scholar
  61. Terry A Slocum, Robert M McMaster, Fritz C Kessler, Hugh H Howard, and Robert B Mc Master. Thematic cartography and geographic visualization. Prentice hall, 2008. Google Scholar
  62. Olivier Swienty, Tumasch Reichenbacher, Simone Reppermund, and Joseph Zihl. The Role of Relevance and Cognition in Attention-guiding Geovisualisation. The Cartographic Journal, 45(3):227-238, August 2008. Google Scholar
  63. Perry W Thorndyke and Barbara Hayes-Roth. Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive psychology, 14(4):560-589, 1982. Google Scholar
  64. Barbara Tversky. Cognitive maps, cognitive collages, and spatial mental models. In European conference on spatial information theory, pages 14-24. Springer, 1993. Google Scholar
  65. Hoang Tam Vo, Peng Ni, Chengbin Yan, Thirumurugan Eswaran, Jugal Shah, and Bob Massarczyk. Diversification of route planning results for improved user satisfaction. In Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on, pages 2625-2630. IEEE, 2015. Google Scholar
  66. Ranxiao Frances Wang. Theories of spatial representations and reference frames: What can configuration errors tell us? Psychonomic bulletin & review, 19(4):575-587, 2012. Google Scholar
  67. Wen Wen, Toru Ishikawa, and Takao Sato. Individual differences in the encoding processes of egocentric and allocentric survey knowledge. Cognitive science, 37(1):176-192, 2013. Google Scholar
  68. Jan Wilkening and Sara Irina Fabrikant. How do decision time and realism affect map-based decision making? In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory, pages 1-19. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH About DROPS Imprint Privacy Contact