Towards Geospatial Tangible User Interfaces: An Observational User Study Exploring Geospatial Interactions of the Novice

Tangible user interfaces (TUI) such as tangible tabletops have potential as novel and innovative learning environments for mapping applications across a wide range of geospatial learning activities. This is because they offer a more natural and intuitive class of interface to users and they are fun to use. For realising their potential as a new type of geo-technology, they must be easy and straightforward to learn and remember how to use. Furthermore, the different types of tangible object interactions should align to the mental models and cultural perceptions of different types of users. This paper reports on the results of an initial observational of a small set of novice users. Users were recorded completing six tasks whilst thinking aloud. The resulting analysis revealed how easy it was for the novice to discover the different types of geospatial tangible interactions (e.g., zoom, pan, adding layers, working with layers). Formed around the categories of (1) everyday cartographic elements and their everyday metaphors, (2) object manipulations, and (3) offline interactions we propose a set usability guidelines for geospatial tangible tables. The aim is to provide an evidence base on which to improve future iterations of the improving their usability, usefulness and increasing their potential as a learning interface.

[1]  Jacob Buur,et al.  Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction , 2006, CHI.

[2]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms , 1997, CHI.

[3]  Daniel Z. Sui,et al.  The wikification of GIS and its consequences: Or Angelina Jolie's new tattoo and the future of GIS , 2008, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[4]  Robert E. Roth,et al.  Interactivity and Cartography: A Contemporary Perspective on User Interface and User Experience Design from Geospatial Professionals , 2015, Cartogr. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Geovisualization.

[5]  A. MacEachren,et al.  Research Challenges in Geovisualization , 2001, KN - Journal of Cartography and Geographic Information.

[6]  Rajeev Sharma,et al.  Enabling collaborative geoinformation access and decision‐making through a natural, multimodal interface , 2005, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[7]  Valérie Maquil,et al.  Twist, shift, or stack? Usability analysis of geospatial interactions on a tangible tabletop , 2015, 2015 1st International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management (GISTAM).

[8]  Eric Ras,et al.  Collaborative Problem Solving with Objects: Physical Aspects of a Tangible Tabletop in Technology-based Assessment , 2012, COOP.

[9]  Ulrich Leopold,et al.  A geospatial tangible user interface to support stakeholder participation in urban planning , 2015, 2015 1st International Conference on Geographical Information Systems Theory, Applications and Management (GISTAM).

[10]  Ed Parsons.  The Map of the Future May Not Be a Map! , 2013 .

[11]  Jakob Tholander,et al.  "Looking At the Computer but Doing It On Land": Children's Interactions in a Tangible Programming Space , 2005, BCS HCI.

[12]  Menno-Jan Kraak,et al.  Making useful and useable geovisualization , 2005 .

[13]  Jin Chen,et al.  Supporting Map-based Geocollaboration Through Natural Interfaces to Large-Screen Displays , 2006 .

[14]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Spatial Thinking and the GIS User Interface , 2011 .

[15]  Paul Marshall,et al.  Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? , 2007, TEI.

[16]  Ian Oakley,et al.  Supporting offline activities on interactive surfaces , 2013, TEI '13.

[17]  Gavriel Salvendy,et al.  Number of people required for usability evaluation , 2010, Commun. ACM.

[18]  Patrick Weber,et al.  Towards Usability Engineering for Online Editors of Volunteered Geographic Information: A Perspective on Learnability , 2012, Trans. GIS.

[19]  Mordechai Haklay,et al.  A less‐is‐more approach to geovisualization – enhancing knowledge construction across multidisciplinary teams , 2009, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[20]  Valérie Maquil,et al.  Towards Understanding the Design Space of Tangible User Interfaces for Collaborative Urban Planning , 2016, Interact. Comput..

[21]  Wilfried Brauer,et al.  Spatial Cognition III , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

[23]  Joep W. Frens,et al.  Tangible products: redressing the balance between appearance and action , 2004, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[24]  L. Faulkner.  Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[25]  Stephen Brewster,et al.  Usability Evaluation of Web Mapping Sites , 2008 .

[26]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[27]  Kenneth P. Fishkin,et al.  A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces , 2004, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[28]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems , 1993, INTERCHI.

[29]  Erik Duval,et al.  Touching transport - a case study on visualizing metropolitan public transit on interactive tabletops , 2014, AVI.

[30]  Jakob Tholander,et al.  Towards a new set of ideals: consequences of the practice turn in tangible interaction , 2008, TEI.

[31]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces , 2000, IBM Syst. J..

[32]  Sara Price,et al.  A representation approach to conceptualizing tangible learning environments , 2008, TEI.

[33]  Mordechai Haklay,et al.  Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centred design approach , 2003, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[34]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Twenty years of progress: GIScience in 2010 , 2010, J. Spatial Inf. Sci..