Form Follows Content: An Empirical Study on Symbol-Content (In)Congruences in Thematic Maps

Through signs and symbols, maps represent geographic space in a generalized and abstracted way. Cartographic research is, therefore, concerned with establishing a mutually shared set of signs and semiotic rules to communicate geospatial information successfully. While cartographers generally strive for cognitively congruent maps, empirical research has only started to explore the different facets and levels of correspondences between external cartographic representations and processes of human cognition. This research, therefore, draws attention to the principle of contextual congruence to study the correspondences between shape symbols and different geospatial content. An empirical study was carried out to explore the (in)congruence of cartographic point symbols with respect to positive, neutral, and negative geospatial topics in monothematic maps. In an online survey, 72 thematic maps (i.e., 12 map topics × 6 symbols) were evaluated by 116 participants in a between-groups design. The point symbols comprised five symmetric shapes (i.e., Circle, Triangle, Square, Rhomb, Star) and one Asymmetric Star shape. The study revealed detailed symbol-content congruences for each map topic as well as on an aggregated level, i.e., by positive, neutral, and negative topic clusters. Asymmetric Star symbols generally showed to be highly incongruent with positive and neutral topics, while highly congruent with negative map topics. Symmetric shapes, on the other hand, emerged to be of high congruence with positive and neutral map topics, whilst incongruent with negative topics. As the meaning of point symbols showed to be susceptible to context, the findings lead to the conclusion that cognitively congruent maps require profound context-specific considerations when designing and employing map symbols.

[1]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Correction to: Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines , 2018, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.

[2]  Eugene Zhang,et al.  Design principles for origin-destination flow maps , 2018 .

[3]  Sidonie Christophe,et al.  Expressive Map Design Based on Pop Art: Revisit of Semiology of Graphics? , 2012 .

[4]  A. Koláčný Cartographic Information—a Fundamental Concept and Term in Modern Cartography , 1969 .

[5]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[6]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Some Ways that Maps and Diagrams Communicate , 2000, Spatial Cognition.

[8]  Barbara Tversky,et al.  Animation: can it facilitate? , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[9]  Mary Anne Thompson,et al.  The influence of probabilistic volcanic hazard map properties on hazard communication , 2015, Journal of Applied Volcanology.

[10]  Alan M. MacEachren,et al.  The Role of Complexity and Symbolization Method in Thematic Map Effectiveness , 1982 .

[11]  Sarah H. Creem-Regehr,et al.  Effects of ensemble and summary displays on interpretations of geospatial uncertainty data , 2017, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.

[12]  Alan M. MacEachren,et al.  How to Assess Visual Communication of Uncertainty? A Systematic Review of Geospatial Uncertainty Visualisation User Studies , 2014 .

[13]  Alexander J. Kent,et al.  Form follows feedback: rethinking cartographic communication , 2018 .

[14]  Adrian Mander,et al.  The Skillings–Mack Test (Friedman Test when There are Missing Data) , 2009, The Stata journal.

[15]  Barbara Bartz Petchenik,et al.  Cognition In Cartography , 1977 .

[16]  Janez Demsar,et al.  Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets , 2006, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[17]  Petr Kubícek,et al.  Effect of Size, Shape and Map Background in Cartographic Visualization: Experimental Study on Czech and Chinese Populations , 2018, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[18]  Mark Gahegan,et al.  Visual Semiotics & Uncertainty Visualization: An Empirical Study , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[19]  Ian Muehlenhaus,et al.  If Looks Could Kill: The Impact of Different Rhetorical Styles on Persuasive Geocommunication , 2012 .

[20]  Ian Muehlenhaus,et al.  The design and composition of persuasive maps , 2013 .

[21]  Matt Duckham,et al.  Evaluating the impact of visualization of wildfire hazard upon decision-making under uncertainty , 2016, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[22]  Silvia Klettner,et al.  Affective Communication of Map Symbols: A Semantic Differential Analysis , 2020, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[23]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Assessing the effectiveness of different visualizations for judgments of positional uncertainty , 2016, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[24]  Silvia Klettner,et al.  Why Shape Matters - On the Inherent Qualities of Geometric Shapes for Cartographic Representations , 2019, ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf..

[25]  Iris Vessey,et al.  Cognitive Fit: A Theory‐Based Analysis of the Graphs Versus Tables Literature* , 1991 .