Richard Treves' presentation in the 2nd Workdshop on usability of geographic information, 23rd March 2010 at UCL, London. See details at http://www.virart.nottingham.ac.uk/GI%20Usability/index.html

1. Google Earth Tours
User Testing Spatial Content
Richard Treves, GoogleEarthDesign.Blogspot.com
Tuesday, 23rd March 2010

2. Collaborators
SPLINT Fellowship
Paula Englebrecht (Ordnance
Survey, UK)

3. Introduction My Interest:
Public Understanding of Maps
(Outreach/Education)
Usability of Viz. not Data or App.
Importance of Design
Lawn Mower Rule and Animation
Literature
The Test, Results, Interpretation
Thoughts on Testing
Conclusion

4. Nokia‟s
Mistake
“This is boring."
“I just slept through
the last talk, I dreamt
of Elvis"
“I’m afraid Elvis has
left the building"

5. Just Because We Can…
…Does Not Mean We Should

6. A Tour Virtual Flight around
Landscape
Layers of Data on/off
Not just Virtual Globes
More Usable because:
Layer reveal
Location and Scale

7. Animation Literature “Tours” = Edu.
Animation
Empirically tested
Usability Best
Practices:1
1.Audio and Visual (not subtitles)
2.Closeness (time and space)
3.Friendly (use of „I‟)
4.No Chart Junk
1] Animation as an Aid to Multimedia Learning, Mayer and Moreno, Ed. Psych. Review 2002 Vol14, p87

8. “Sit on Lawnmowers are
Lawn Mower Rule good for transport”
– Good for mowing
lawns
– Not for getting here
today
“Map precision is always
crucial”
Not are tours good for
Visualising data but
when are they good at
Visualising data.
When should we apply
tours?

9. Narrative Delivery
Tours Applicable - Intro to DB?
Data across multiple
scales
locations
Virtual Flight
Segments (VFSs)
Animated Viewpoints
in Spatial
Software (family
tree)

10. Glacial Landscape Teaching
Tours Usability Test Paper vs GEarth. 5-10
minutes.
Best practices except audio
Qualitative and Quantitative
Students tested afterwards
Paper vs GEarth Differ by:
• GEarth = Engaging
• VFSs and Image Quality
• Narrative vs Exploration?

11. Test Results I
Quantitative:
n=30, GEarth tour better
Glacial Interpretation e.g. Identify
features elsewhere: T test P=0.19
Spatial memory e.g. where was the
study site?: T test P=0.46
More time spent on GEarth
Is GEarth engaging? (8/10)

12. Test Results II
Qualitative:
• Generation YouTube: Play Button
only
• Robust
• Image quality

13. Interpretation
GEarth Tours vs paper equivalent:
• Indicative Evidence that tours
are better in multi-scale situ.
– Plus Audio
• Engaging (Question, Test Times
and Scores)
• But Why?

14. Thoughts on Testing
• Above all else:
Hallway testing
• Lawn Mower Law
• Observations for
insight but truth is in
empirical tests.

15. • Ran quantitative
Conclusion usability tests on
Tours (more!)
• Found good tours
application
• More lit. search
• Focus in on VFSs
– Speed
– Landmarks
• 3D thematic
maps

16. Google Earth Tours
User Testing Spatial Content
Richard Treves, GoogleEarthDesign.Blogspot.com
Tuesday, 23rd March 2010