Evaluation of schematic maps and “You-are-here” maps for indoor navigation tasks
ISBN 978-85-88783-11-9
Authors
1Delazari, L.; 3Sarot, R.; 4Anand, S.; 4Morley, J.
1FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PARANA Email: luciene@ufpr.br]
3FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF PARANA Email: rhaissa89@gmail.com
4UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM Email: suchid.anand@nottingham.ac.uk
4UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM Email: jeremy.morley@nottingham.ac.uk
Abstract
The growth in the size and complexity of public buildings such as universities, airports, and shopping malls has made efficient indoor navigation necessary. There are many examples of indoor navigation tools, such as “You Are Here” (YAH) maps, which are reference maps that are typically large scale and placed in key locations of the area that they depict. The main objective of YAH maps is to aid navigation, but there are issues concerning their use, related to issues such as misalignment, object rotation, and self-location. Schematic maps (SM) are helpful in spatial problem-solving tasks such as way-finding in outdoor environments, or for representing underground railways, surface railways, and tram and bus routes. SM when used for the purpose of visualization can be a vital aid in the interpretation of complex information. The generic process for generating schematic networks typically involves the elimination of all features that are not functionally relevant to representation. All geometric invariants of the network's structure (other than topological accuracy) may be relaxed. Research on indoor maps is more recent, and has focused on positioning techniques rather than the representation of such spaces. There is no established knowledge regarding which type of map is best for an indoor environment therefore this paper presents a study comparing the use of a YAH and a SM of one building located at Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) – Brazil. Both YAH and SM were designed considering their use in two different tasks: in the first task, the user should find a specific room, which is located in a different level and, in the second task, the user should explain to another person how to navigate from one point to another, using the map as an accessory. The SM was designed considering three classes of objects: corridors (classified as accessible or restricted), rooms (accessible or restricted) and interest points (toilets, lifts, stairs). The three classes of objects defined in the map design have specific rules. Thus, rooms were generalized to points, which are linked to paths by lines at the door positions. All interest points are represented by pictorial symbols representing the original objects. Furthermore, all interest points must be placed as close as possible to their original positions. The proximities and relative positions of these points to others features, such as rooms or even other interest points, are important elements when people are navigating. Paths are lines between entrance and exit points, connecting all rooms and interest points. Lines connecting adjacent rooms are represented by solid lines, and lines connecting restricted access areas, are represented by dashed lines. We tested 30 people randomly among the universe of users of Centro Politécnico at UFPR divided in two groups, each group using one type of map. We asked to the users to use the map to perform the following tasks: a) “You are at the position marked in the map and you have to go to room PF-03. Please find this room”; b) “Please give instructions to go from point A to point B. Use this map as an accessory”. In the second question, the points were not marked in the map, so the user had to find the locations in the map and then explain the path. We observed the users during the execution of the tasks and asked to them to explain what they were doing. After the execution of the tasks, the users had to answer a questionnaire about the tasks and about the map used. They were asked to draw a sketch showing some features of the environment, in order to verify which points were considered as landmarks, the amount of details remembered and questions related to object rotation and self-location. We are evaluating the results considering the following points: the accomplishment of the task; the position of the landmarks in the sketch, the correctness of relative position among features and the amount of details drawn in the sketch.
Keywords
schematic map; indoor map; indoor navigation tasks