Naïve Cartography: How Intuitions about Display Configuration Can Hurt Performance
Abstract
Map-making has traditionally been the domain of professional cartographers, but with the advent of interactive display systems, users now have the flexibility to create and configure their own digital maps and other visual displays. This flexibility can be beneficial only if users have good intuitions about which display configurations are effective or ineffective for different tasks. Here we examine people's intuitions about display effectiveness and whether these intuitions match the actual effectiveness of different displays. Surveys of undergraduate students and post-graduate meteorology students reveal that they consistently prefer enhanced displays, especially those that add animation and realism. These naïve intuitions contrast with the principles of cartography, which emphasize the importance of abstracting from the real world to create simple displays that make task-relevant information salient. Both a review of objective studies and a new study presented here support traditional principles of cartography and are inconsistent with naïve intuitions. We interpret these studies in relation to new theoretical notions of users’ folk fallacies about how perception works, and derive implications for the design of interactive display systems and education.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These results lend weight to previous findings that wayfinders do not necessarily perform better with increased realism.
“As measures of landmark and route knowledge, the foundations of cognitive spatial representations, these results lend weight to previous findings that that wayfinders do not necessarily perform better with increased realism (Hegarty et al., 2009; Liao et al., 2017; Plesa & Cartwright, 2008; Wilkening & Fabrikant, 2011).”
From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Hegarty et al., 2009
Our results contradict previous findings that added realism hurts performance, especially for users with low spatial abilities.
“Our results contradict previous findings that added realism hurts performance, especially for users with low spatial abilities (Hegarty et al., 2009; Wilkening & Fabrikant, 2011).”
From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Hegarty et al., 2009
Users generally prefer fully realistic 3D visualizations because they provide a more naturalistic representation of the environment and are perceived as recognizable, efficient, intuitive, enjoyable, and fun.
“Additionally, users generally prefer fully realistic 3D visualizations, which is attributed to the fact that they provide a more naturalistic representation of the environment and are perceived as recognizable, efficient, intuitive, enjoyable, and fun (Hegarty et al., 2009; Liao et al., 2017; Lokka & Çöltekin, 2019; Oulasvirta et al., 2009; Plesa & Cartwright, 2008).”
From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Hegarty et al., 2009
Previous research shows that while participants prefer realistic 3D depictions, they do not always perform better with them.
“The navigation performance and visualization preference results align with previous research findings that while participants prefer realistic 3D depictions, they do not always perform better with them (Hegarty et al., 2009; Kray et al., 2003; Liao et al., 2017; Oulasvirta et al., 2009; Plesa & Cartwright, 2008).”
From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Hegarty et al., 2009
Our results are in line with previous studies that the visualization style does not hinder wayfinders with high-spatial abilities.
“On the other hand, our results are in line with the findings of previous studies that the visualization style does not hinder wayfinders with high-spatial abilities (Hegarty et al., 2009; Kapaj et al., 2021, 2023; Lanini-Maggi et al., 2021; Thrash et al., 2019; Wilkening & Fabrikant, 2011).”
From The influence of landmark visualization style on task performance, visual attention, and spatial learning in a real-world navigation task (2024) · cites this paper as Hegarty et al., 2009
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 115
- Authors
- Hegarty, M., Smallman, H. S., Stull, A. T., & Canham, M. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Pacific Science and Engineering Group / San Diego / CA / USA
- Central Oregon Community College (US)
- Venue
- Cartographica
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 171-186
- ISSN
- 0317-7173 (ISSN-L)
- 1911-9925
- OpenAlex
- W2125811218
- Cited by
- 115
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 6.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geographic Information Systems Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- display configuration, display effectiveness, interactive displays, digital maps, animation, realism (computer graphics), cartographic principles, perception, display design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
