=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0073
|storemode=property
|title=User Experience and Strategy Choices During Navigation: A Content Analysis of Navigators Using Different Types of Wayfinding Devices
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0073.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/SchnitzlerH15
}}
==User Experience and Strategy Choices During Navigation: A Content Analysis of Navigators Using Different Types of Wayfinding Devices==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0073.pdf
User experience and strategy choices during navigation: A content analysis of
navigators using different types of wayfinding devices
Verena Schnitzler (verena.schnitzler@gess.ethz.ch)
Christoph Hölscher (christoph.hoelscher@gess.ethz.ch)
ETH Zürich, Chair for Cognitive Science, Clausiusstrasse 59, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Abstract to find the next emergency exit in a very small amount of
In this study, we compared navigation through a large, complex,
time. Assuming that a building’s functions are its
public building a) without any map, b) with a printed map, or c) intelligibility and usability it seems reasonable to posit that
with a digital map. Participants looked for five different these are moderating factors in the building’s design. The
destinations while thinking aloud, filled out questionnaires, and usability of a building may also depend (in part) on the
answered open questions about the wayfinding task and about devices designed to make it navigable (i.e., signs, printed
the building and the maps. A content analysis was used in order maps, digital maps). Different navigations aids can induce
to identify key factors in the building’s and maps’ design that specific representations of the environment. While signs
facilitated or hindered successful and satisfactory usage. There
was a significant search time difference between the no-map may induce a representation based largely on landmarks and
group and the two map groups. There were no differences in individual routes, maps allow for a more birds-eye survey
how efficiently the two map groups found destinations. The representation (e.g. Ishikawa & Montello, 2006; Siegel &
analysis of post-experiment questionnaires exhibited a similar White, 1975).
pattern, there were no differences in the assessments of map This study investigates the quality of a building’s internal
usability. Participants using paper maps significantly reported layout as well as the quality of particular wayfinding aids.
most often to not have any difficulties with the wayfinding task.
Participants had to find five destinations inside a large,
The groups did not appear to apply different wayfinding
strategies, suggesting that participants’ strategy choices were complex public building (the Victoria & Albert Museum,
shaped by individual preferences and the building itself with its London) with either a) a digital map of the building, b) a
signage as an additional informative layer. customary paper map of the building, or c) the building’s
signs. The destinations differed in the distance traversed, the
Keywords: design cognition, spatial cognition, user experience
number of floors covered, and the overall difficulty of
finding them. Our aim was to obtain deeper insights into
Introduction
participants’ cognitive processes during wayfinding that
Visitors entering a large, complex, public building (e.g., a were related to building and map design features. We
conference center or an airport) for the first time might use collected and analyzed verbal data with a thinking aloud
diverse sources of information to find their destinations. technique (Ericsson & Simon, 1985) and administered open
Their personal strategies, the designs of signs and maps, and questions about participants’ wayfinding and orientation
the building itself shape their navigation decisions. The strategies and experienced difficulties. This inductive and
contentious principle that form follows function, states that deductive categorization enabled an insight into which
design choices are closely connected to the successful usage design characteristics of the maps and building hindered or
of products. Scholars have shown that people can judge a facilitated efficient usage. Beyond this content analysis
building’s function by looking at its façade (e.g. Nasar, (Krippendorf, 1969) we linked the qualitative data to
Stamps, & Hanyu, 2005). Assuming that buildings are quantitative data by measuring the time required to find the
potentially intelligible (Al-Sayed, Dalton, & Hölscher, destinations. For methodological triangulation, we also
2010), it seems important to emphasize the significance of adapted questionnaires from human-computer-interaction
well-chosen design elements in order to improve the users’ research to check if users’ experiences with the building
experiences and efficiencies. Although the physical space in were influenced by the wayfinding devices.
which people navigate differs a lot from the metaphorical
space of a computer, both share certain characteristics. The Method
real or digital space has to be made usable for the consumer
via connecting elements that have deliberately been chosen The Victoria & Albert Museum
by the designer. For the computer, graphical user interfaces
We obtained our data in the Victoria and Albert Museum
need to be developed; for the built environment, maps and
(V&A) in central London. The building is the world's
signs fulfill the same function. To study humans’ behavior
largest museum of decorative arts and design, built in 1852,
in design – the designer’s as well as the users’ - it seems
and covers 51,000 m2 (5,597,000 ft²) and 145 galleries. As
crucial to understand successful versus unsuccessful
visitors are entering the building through the main entrance,
performance. Successful performance can be a different
they find themselves in a big entrance hall, which connects
entity for different products; for a public building, finding
several hallways and rooms. Most rooms are interconnected,
an intended destination is crucial. For example, each public
leading the visitor further into the building with its seven
building has to be designed in a way that allows at any point
453
floors. These rooms surround an atrium and are connected big, central room in the back of the first floor, can be found
via multiple stairs and elevators, nearly all of which by following the main hall and some signs. We expected its
arbitrarily skip floors. Each floor plan looks completely function to already reveal some information about its
different from the others (Figure 1). potential location. The second destination was in a much
Figure 1: Illustration the floor layout and the map layout more peripheral corner of the building, but very close to the
(print and digital). The circles indicate the location of the Café and had very well placed signs. The third destination
goal destination for the reader (Google Inc., 2013). Floor 2 was located on the fourth floor, which is split into two
& 5 are not shown. halves. These could only be crossed by travelling via the
third or fifth floor. The fourth destination was a very
peripheral destination in the corner of the building, only
accessible through other galleries. The last destination was
on the highest floor and could be found by following the
inconspicuous gallery numbers (see Figure 1).
I. Performance data: Search times
As stated earlier, it is crucial to study users’ behavior in
order to understand successful/unsuccessful performance in
design. Beyond the mere design process itself, the actual
later usage is of equal importance. To address successful
usage of the building, we measured the time people needed
to find the different locations inside the V&A. A researcher
followed participants and captured their start and arrival
times at each destination.
Table 1: Variation of the destinations according to
number of floors to be traveled and difficulty to find.
Number of floors traversed
No change One change Several changes
2. Sackler
Hard Easy
Difficulty
The wayfinding task and the destinations 1. Cafe 5. Gallery 133
Centre
In order to investigate the building’s navigability (and 4. Tapestries 3. Architecture
-
thus intelligibility), we focused on navigators’ behaviors in Exhibition Exhibition
the real environment. Each participant was welcomed and
instructed in the same way to find five destinations inside II. Survey Data: User Experience questionnaires
the building, in the same sequence (see Figure 1) starting As stated before, an essential part of a building’s usability
from the entrance hall. Upon arrival at the last destination is its intelligibility. If the devices people use for their
they were led back to the starting point. The wayfinding wayfinding influences their efficiency, they probably also
tasks were finished once the participant reach the room. We shape their experiences with the building itself. In order to
tested 41 participants (16 male), between 19 and 63 years address this matter, we decided to adapt well-established
old (M=30.88, SD = 9.39), the groups did not significantly questionnaires from human computer interaction (HCI) to
differ regarding the age. The participants were randomly the context of building usage with mobile maps. Although
assigned into one of three conditions. They navigated with these questionnaires were tailored to the needs of HCI, we
1) a customary printed map (n=13), 2) a digital map on a decided to use them in order to be able to compare the usage
smartphone (n = 14), or 3) no map (i.e., using only the of the digital maps to the printed ones. We administered the
building and its signage for orientation) (n=14). Paper maps questionnaires after the walkthrough to obtain deeper
were printed on 304 mm x 304 mm of laminated paper with insights into the visitors’ impressions of the digital
a spiral binding. The digital maps were presented on a compared to the printed maps.
Samsung Galaxy Note II with a screen size of 141 mm (5.55 II. 1. System Usability
inch) with 720 × 1280 pixels. Paper and digital maps had To test if the groups differed in their experiences, we
the same layout and provided the same information (based measured the overall perceived usability of the maps and the
on the Google Maps display for Android). building with the System Usability Scale (Brooke, 1996),
The first author extensively walked through the building which is a validated and well-established, standardized
for several days, visiting each room at least three times, and questionnaire consisting of ten items (from 1 = strongly
subsequently selected the destinations. Both authors jointly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The items, which were
judged the destinations regarding their difficulty. The originally designed to assess users’ satisfaction with
destinations were chosen according to distinctive features software, were modified so that they could be used to
and so that they differed in terms of the number of floors describe the usage of maps and architectural features.
traversed between destinations. The first destination, a very
454
II. 2. Usefulness and Ease of Use independent Variable; IV) on wayfinding efficiency
Furthermore, we used modified questions taken from the (dependent variable; DV). We obtained a significant effect
Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use Inventory of navigation devices for the second destination, the fourth
(Davis, 1989) to assess the subjectively perceived destination, and the fifth destination (all F(2, 34) ≥ 3.2, all p <
usefulness and ease of use of the maps and the building .05). However, there was no significant effect of navigation
(from 1 = likely to 7 = unlikely). devices on search time for the first and third destination.
II. 3. Joy of Use Planned contrasts between all three groups indicated that the
To assess the satisfaction people encounter while no-map condition performed significantly better than the
navigating through the building we administered the map conditions for the second destination, which had very
AttrakDiff (Hassenzahl, Burmester, & Koller, 2003). This good signage. For the fourth and fifth destination the map
questionnaire is a semantic differential with 28 bipolar, 7- groups were significantly faster than the no map group (all
stage items, eliciting the global positive-negative assessment t(21.05) ≥ -2.5, all p < .05). However, there were no
of a product. significant differences between the two map groups. These
II. 4. Visual Aesthetics findings suggest that maps can help people use a building
Beyond merely focusing on satisfaction measures, we more efficiently. But, there was no result suggesting that the
were also interested in how the usage of the different additional medium and design features provided by mobile
devices might have influenced visitors’ impressions of the maps had any benefits or detriments compared to paper
building. For that purpose, we administered the Visual maps.
Aesthetics of Websites Inventory (VisAwi; Moshagen &
Thielsch, 2010), which is designed to assess the aesthetic of
websites, has been experimentally validated, and shows
good to very good reliability rates. We used a shorter
version with four items (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree) that measures a general aesthetics factor.
Although this questionnaire was also originally designed for
HCI backgrounds, we decided to use it because the short
version’s items are applicable to a very broad variety of
products. We also administered all four items of the factor
simplicity taken from the long version because their wording
appears to be highly suitable for assessing architecture.
III. Survey data: Open questions
After looking at navigators’ behavior and experiences
with the building and navigation devices, we tried to narrow
down the design features that might have influenced the Figure 2: Mean search time (and std. deviation) for the
building and map usage. After performing the walkthrough five destinations per group.
and filling out the user experience questionnaires,
participants answered three open questions in written form:
II. Survey Data: User Experience
1. Which strategies did you use to find your way?
2. Where did you think navigation was difficult? A one-way, between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to
3. How did you orient yourself? compare the effect of navigation devices (IV) on user
experience with the maps (DV). Surprisingly, there were no
IV. Verbal Data: Thinking Aloud protocols significant differences, indicating that the two map types did
We asked the participants to think aloud, thus uttering not reliably differ in terms of user experience.
their thoughts about the wayfinding process, their In order to be able to compare the perceived usefulness
navigation choices, the building, the signs, or the maps. for the two map types the score for the SUS, the EU and the
While walking, the language was recorded and later PU were calculated. The analysis revealed no significant
transcribed. These transcripts were then abbreviated to 438 differences regarding the maps’ usability (SUS: F(1, 27) = 0,
n.s.; PU: F(1, 27) = .04, n.s.; EU: F(1, 27) = 1.18, n.s). SUS
task-related statements.
scores rank from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate
better usability. The paper maps had a mean SUS score of
Results and Discussion
68.75 (SD=16.75), the digital maps had a mean SUS score
of 57 (SD=20.2). Those values can be interpreted as an
I. Performance data: Search times
appropriate level of usability (values between 52.01 and
To test our assumption that devices alter navigators’ 72.75) (Bangor, Kortum, & Miller, 2008).
wayfinding performance, we conducted five one-way, We also conducted a one-way, between subjects ANOVA
between-subjects ANOVAs comparing the effect of to compare the effect of navigation devices (IV) on the
navigation devices (i.e., signs, printed map, digital map,
455
users’ experiences with the building itself (DV), and again, between the raters on all the categories but 5) layout of the
we could not establish a significant difference between the building (α’s between 0.72 and 0.91; Krippendorff, 2004).
groups regarding the VisAWI or AttrakDiff. Some of the There were some significant associations between
questionnaires provide researchers with benchmarks to experimental group and aspects that caused difficulties in
classify if the system reached a sufficient amount of navigation: People without a map reported more difficulties
approval by the user. We decided against comparing those caused by missing signage than those using a map (χ2(2, N=205)
benchmarks to our obtained values because the benchmarks = 8.81, p < .01). This corresponds to previously described
were originally designed for core HCI questions, rather than result and may suggest that people using a map in addition
this spatial environment context. to the signage also used other information sources
(Hölscher, Büchner, Brösamle, Meilinger, & Strube, 2007).
III. Survey data: Open questions Interestingly, there was a significant majority of people
III. 1 Which strategies did you use to find your way? using the paper map that reported having no difficulties at
We expected that people would use orientation strategies all (χ2(2, N=205) = 4.22, p < .05). Based on odds ratios, the
based on 1) following signage, 2) salient landmarks, 3) odds of the paper map group stating that they did not
cardinal directions, 4) memory, and 5) their intuition and 6) experience any difficulties were 2.11 higher than for the
route planning with a map, Additionally, we used findings digital map group and 2.08 higher than for the no-map
from previous research that identified path choice strategies group.
navigators use in complex, multi-level buildings: 7) the III. 3 How did you orient yourself?
central point strategy, 8) the floor strategy, 9) the direction We specified seven categories in order to obtain further
strategy, and 10) the route is well known strategy (Hölscher, insights into which information sources users chose to
Büchner, Meilinger, & Strube, 2009). Those deployed successfully navigate the building. Comments were coded
wayfinding strategies partly depend on the extend of a regarding the usage of 1) the map, 2) the signage, 3)
building’s legibility. The participants’ answers were coded memory, 4) the design of the building, 5) intuition, 6)
if they included a statement that matched one of the exploration, and 7) cardinal directions. Krippendorff’s α
developed categories. Krippendorff’s α indicated that the indicated that the coders had a good agreement for all seven
coders had a good agreement in the categories of following categories (all α’s between 0.72 and 0.91) (Krippendorff,
signage, route planning with maps, cardinal directions, 2004).
memory, and intuition (all α’s between .82 and .98) Again, the significant association between groups and how
(Krippendorff, 2004). likely people were to use the signage for orientation could
There was a significant association between group and be found (χ2(2, N=205) = 11.7, p < .01). Based on odds ratios,
how likely people were to mention using the signage (χ2(2, the odds of the map groups reporting using the signage were
N=205) = 27.62, p < .01). The no-map group reported using lower (.3) than in the no-map group. There was no
the signage significantly more often than the map groups difference between the two map groups. This finding
(odds ratio: .16). The map groups did not significantly differ supported our previous observations that people with access
in the number of comments regarding signage. This is in to a map used more information sources than the signage
line with the fact that people who did not have access to a alone. None of the map groups gave significantly more
map had to rely only on signage for navigation. comments about the map’s design than the other.
Furthermore, this demonstrated that people who did have Focusing on the differences between the five destinations,
access to maps used information sources beyond the signage revealed an interesting pattern. For the first destination,
alone. We could not find a significant association between there was a significant association between group and
which map type people used and how likely they were to comments about missing signage as a cause for navigation
plan their route with it. difficulties (χ2(2, N=41) = 12.26, p < .01; .2 odds ratio for the
The groups did not significantly differ in terms of their map groups). The second destination, which had very salient
preference for using memory, intuition, or cardinal signage, showed the highest number of comments about not
directions for their wayfinding. Navigators’ orientation experiencing any difficulties in the no-map group (χ2(2, N=41)
behaviors might mainly be shaped either by the building = 6.95, p < .05). This can be linked to our result that the no-
itself or people’s individual preferences. The fact that the map group also significantly used the least amount of time
groups did not significantly differ in their stated strategy to find this destination. For the third destination in turn, the
choices suggested that having access to one of the map paper map group commented most on not experiencing any
types did not alter the legibility of the building itself. difficulties (χ2(2, N=42) = 8.25, p<.01). This matched the
III. 2 Where did you think navigation was difficult? previous finding that navigating with a paper map was
The two researchers who conducted the testing in the linked to being more likely to report not experiencing any
V&A noted where they observed people having difficulties difficulties. This finding, combined with the fact that the
and jointly developed the following categories: 1) changing paper map group and the digital map group did not show a
floors, 2) identifying current floor, 3) map properties, 4) significant difference in time required to find the
missing signage, 5) layout of the building, and 6) no destination, suggested that although we could not find a
difficulties. Krippendorff’s α indicated a good agreement difference between those groups regarding their wayfinding
456
efficiency, they clearly differed regarding their experiences commenting on the map’s design was significantly (4.31)
during wayfinding. higher than in the paper map group. All those statements
ranged from neutral descriptions to comments about design
IV. Verbal Data: Thinking Aloud protocols shortcomings and potential improvements.
The 438 abbreviated statements were coded for whether
they included a comment about 1) the building design, 2) Summary and Conclusion
the signage design, and/or 3) the map design. Furthermore, We found robust wayfinding efficiency advantages for
the statements were coded if the statement included a navigators using a map, both digital and printed, over
comment about 4) a cognitive process or an orientation navigators only relying on signage. These findings confirm
strategy or 5) participants feeling insecure or puzzled. The that maps can improve a people building’s legibility and
two coders had an excellent agreement for all categories (all support finding goals faster. However, there was no result
Krippendorff’s α’s between .82 and .97; Krippendorff, suggesting that the additional medium and design features
2004). The no-map group gave significantly more provided by mobile maps were more (or less) beneficial
comments than the other two groups (50%, see Table 2). than paper maps when it comes to wayfinding efficiency.
The majority of comments were about cognitive processes Furthermore the efficiency advantages of maps appear to be
and orientation strategies (33.1%, see Table 2). There was moderated by destination characteristics. This leaves room
no significant association between group and whether to speculate about the possibility of shaping wayfinding not
people commented on their cognitive processes or only with devices, but also with architectural design and
orientation strategies. There was a significant association of signage (Hölscher et al., 2007). Further testing would
group and noting a feeling of insecurity or being puzzled require an experimental control of building features to
(χ2(2, N=438) = 6.69, p < .05). While the map groups had a .86 detect connections between characteristics of the build
lower odds ratio than the no-map group, the map groups did environment and wayfinding decisions.
not significantly differ. The user experience questionnaires did not reveal a
There was a significant association of group and significant difference between people using a digital or
comments on the building’s design (χ2(2, N=438) = 46.95, p < printed map. There were also no significant differences
.01). The odds ratio of the paper map group to comment on between the three groups regarding the building’s
the building’s design had a 6.7 higher odds ratio than the no assessment. Participants might have been suffering from
map group and had a .2 odds ratio for the digital map group. fatigue after the potentially tiring wayfinding tasks that were
Many participants confirmed the V&A to be a confusing administered without a break. This might have influenced
building. This could also be found in the verbal data: “It's a their experience ratings in general and caused a floor effect.
really confusing building.” (Condition: no-map, Destination: 5) / “I can't The open questions about navigation difficulties,
understand (how) stairs can miss a level.“ (Condition: no-map, orientation, and wayfinding strategies added to the pattern
Destination: 5) / “Ok, we could just go around and round in this revealed by the efficiency measures. The three groups did
thing. It feels like a labyrinth.” (Condition: paper map, Destination: 3) / not reliably differ in their reported navigation strategies.
“I'm not really sure where I am right now. (laughter)” Navigators without a map reported significantly more often
(Condition: digital map, Destination: 3). to use signage for orientation, and to experience difficulties
Furthermore there was a significant association of group caused by missing signage. This might be explained with
and comments on the signage’s design (χ2(2, N=438) = 16.78, p the fact that they were not able to form a survey
< .01) with an odds ratio of .24 for the map groups to representation of the building and therefore had to focus
comment on the signage compared to the no map groups. more on information in their local surrounds than on their
And a 2.25 higher odds ratio for the digital map group than knowledge about the building. However, navigating with a
the paper map group. paper map was linked to reporting most frequently on not
There was also a significant difference between the map experiencing any difficulties. This suggests that navigation
groups in commenting on the maps’ designs (χ2(2, N=209) = appeared easier to navigators with a paper map than in the
14.6, p < .01); the odds ratio of the digital map group two other conditions. Despite the two map groups not
Table 2: Frequencies of comments per group and category. The percentages within condition are shown in parentheses.
Commenting on No map Paper map Digital map Total
Cognitive process /orientation strategy 81 (55.9) 32 (31.7) 32 (27.1) 145 (33.1)
Insecurity / feeling puzzled 53 (61.6) 18 (20.9) 15 (17.4) 86 (10.0)
Building design 17 (25.8) 37 (56.1) 12 (18.2) 66 (15.1)
Signage design 63 (64.9) 9 (9.3) 25 (25.8) 97 (22.1)
Map design - - 9 (20.5) 35 (79.5) 49 (10)
Total 214 (48.9) 105 (24) 118 (27.2) 438
457
significantly differing regarding the time required to find the References
destinations, they seem to have experienced a different ease
Al-Sayed, K., Dalton, R. C., & Hölscher, C. (2010).
in wayfinding. This could also be supported with the
Discursive design thinking: The role of explicit
Thinking Aloud data. The digital map group provided more
knowledge in creative architectural design reasoning.
comments about irritating or missing features of the map
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis
design. In addition the no-map group gave significantly
and Manufacturing, 24(02), 211.
more comments about the signage design and reported more
Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An
often about a feeling of being insecure or puzzled by their
Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale.
wayfinding tasks, while the paper map group gave
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
significantly most comments about the building’s design.
24(6), 574–594. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and
We believe that the signage group and the digital map group
dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry,
were primarily involved with the available navigation
189, 194.
information, while the paper map group’s attention was less
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative
absorbed by the map, and therefore had free capacity to pay
design of psychological experiments. Univ of California
attention to the surrounding environment. The verbal
Press.
protocols did not show a difference between groups
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
regarding cognitive processes or orientation strategies,
use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
which supports the finding from the open questions.
Quarterly, 319–340.
Efficiently guiding visitors to a desired destination may
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1985). Protocol analysis.
not be seen as the V&A’s core function, since museums are
MIT press.
also a place for exploration. To provide participants with an
Google Inc. (2013). Google Maps Mobile. Mountain View,
adequate scenario, we framed the visit as a wayfinding task
CA, USA: Google Inc.
with a focus on efficiency differences and experience
Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003).
differences between the groups. Because none of the
AttrakDiff: A questionnaire to measure perceived
navigators stopped or detoured to look at exhibitions we
hedonic and pragmatic quality. In Mensch & Computer
believe the fact that they were traveling through a museum
(pp. 187–196).
did not influence our participants’ wayfinding behavior. On
Hölscher, C., Büchner, S., Brösamle, M., Meilinger, T., &
the one hand the museum is a realistic testing environment
Strube, G. (2007). Signs and Maps – Cognitive
and allowed us to get insight into people’s experiences as
Economy in the Use of External Aids for Indoor
they are in everyday life, instead of merely testing
Navigation. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Cognitive
complexity-reduced reactions in the lab (Brunswik, 1956).
Science Society (pp. 377–382). Austin, TX: Cognitive
But on the other hand, testing in realistic settings does not
Science Society.
allow for easy experimental variations (e.g. altering signage,
Hölscher, C., Büchner, S. J., Meilinger, T., & Strube, G.
enlarging windows, fitting in atriums), the specification of
(2009). Adaptivity of wayfinding strategies in a multi-
key factors that alter visitors’ experience with the building
building ensemble: The effects of spatial structure, task
and maps, and the improvement of their effectiveness and
requirements, and metric information. Journal of
satisfaction. Those questions can be answered in virtual
Environmental Psychology, 29(2), 208–219.
reality scenarios and provide fruitful ideas for further
Ishikawa, T., & Montello, D. R. (2006). Spatial knowledge
research focusing on those key factors. This case study was
acquisition from direct experience in the environment:
a valuable opportunity to look at indoor map users’
Individual differences in the development of metric
navigation through a multilevel, complex building and
knowledge and the integration of separately learned
provided further ideas regarding which factors to take into
places. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 93–129.
account for subsequent studies. A further step could include
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in Content Analysis.
mobile eyetracking in order to focus on the users’
Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.
attentional processes, and including architects analyzing
Krippendorf, S. (1969). Content analysis: history and
building properties to get a deeper insight into the designers’
critical issues. Unpubl. Doctors Diss. Univ. of
perspectives and to prospectively aim to identify key factors
Pensylvania.
that alter users’ cognition and behavior.
Moshagen, M., & Thielsch, M. T. (2010). Facets of visual
aesthetics. International Journal of Human-Computer
Acknowledgements Studies, 68(10), 689–709.
We thank Google Inc. for the Google Faculty Research Nasar, J. L., Stamps, A. E., & Hanyu, K. (2005). Form and
Award that supported this research project. We also thank function in public buildings. Journal of Environmental
Thora Tenbrink and the SFB/TR8 Spatial Cognition for Psychology, 25(2), 159–165.
helping us with transcribing the verbal data and Carina Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of
Hoppenz for her help with conducting the experiment. spatial representations of large-scale environments.
Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 10, 9–55.
458