Design concepts for learning spatial relationships

ABSTRACT

Maps are cognitive artifacts that represent not only the characteristics of the information space but also the use people make of the space. There are three privileged modalities by which humans learn the relationships in existing spaces: path-based learning, landmark-based learning and survey learning. These three modalities are differently sustained by maps and by the real environments. Maps afford Simultaneous experience of the space, Single point of view, Survey knowledge, Secondary spatial activity; while real environments afford Progressive Experience of the space, Multiple point of view, Procedural knowledge, Primary Spatial activity. The most important attempts to modify these differences between maps and real environments, and to merge their properties, have been: a) the creation of visual structures that enable focus + context views; b) the design of information landscapes that enable free flight in 3D space. The principles used to obtain such a view are the combination of Simultaneous and Progressive Experience of the space as a Primary spatial activity.We are designing new views for a graphic information system by merging the affordances of traditional maps and real environments for learning spatial relations. The emerging views will be presented and discussed from a theoretical point of view and exemplified in their application to the design of an information system for a National Park in Italy. The prototype of the information system was tested by human factors specialists and by end-users; the results of the test show both strength, and weakness, in the implementation of the proposed design concepts.

REFERENCES

• 1: Abrams, J. "Muriel Cooper's Visible Wisdom," I.D. Sept./Oct. 1994.
• 2: Stuart K. Card , Jock D. Mackinlay , Ben Shneiderman, Readings in information visualization: using vision to think, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1999
• 3: Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology, a once and future discipline . Cambridge, Massachusetts: the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• 4: Cooper, Muriel. "Computers and Design." Design Quarterly, Volume 142, pp. 22-31. 1989
• 5: Cornell, E. H., Heth, C. D., & Alberts, D. M. (1994). Place recognition and way finding by children and adults. Memory and Cognition, 22 (6), 633-643.
• 6: Rudolph P. Darken , John L. Sibert, Navigating large virtual spaces, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, v.8 n.1, p.49-71, Jan.-March 1996 [doi>10.1080/10447319609526140]
• 7: Evans, G.W., & Pezdek, K. (1980). Cognitive mapping: Knowledge of real-world distance and location information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6 (1), 13-24.
• 8: Furnas, G. W. 1981. The fisheye view: a new look at structured files. Technical report, Bell Laboratories
• 9: G. W. Furnas, Generalized fisheye views, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.16-23, April 13-17, 1986, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
• 10: G. W. Furnas, The FISHEYE view: a new look at structured files, Readings in information visualization: using vision to think, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1999
• 11: Glicksohn, J. (1994). Rotation, orientation, and cognitive mapping. American Journal of Psychology, 107 (1), 39-51 .
• 12: Hunt, E. & Waller, D. (1999). Orientation and wayfinding: A review. Technical Report, University of Washington.
• 13: Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: the MIT Press.
• 14: Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L.V., & Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location. Psychological Review, 98 (3), 352-376.
• 15: John Lamping , Ramana Rao , Peter Pirolli, A focus+context technique based on hyperbolic geometry for visualizing large hierarchies, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.401-408, May 07-11, 1995, Denver, Colorado, United States [doi>10.1145/223904.223956]
• 16: Lloyd, R. (1989). Cognitive maps: Encoding and decoding information. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 79.
• 17: Jock D. Mackinlay , George G. Robertson , Stuart K. Card, The perspective wall: detail and context smoothly integrated, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology, p.173-176, April 27-May 02, 1991, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States [doi>10.1145/108844.108870]
• 18: Moeser, S. D. (1988). Cognitive mapping in a complex building. Environment and Behavior, 20, (1), 21-49.
• 19: Donald A. Norman, Things that make us smart: defending human attributes in the age of the machine, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1993
• 20: George G. Robertson , Jock D. Mackinlay , Stuart K. Card, Cone Trees: animated 3D visualizations of hierarchical information, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology, p.189-194, April 27-May 02, 1991, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States [doi>10.1145/108844.108883]
• 21: Antonio Rizzo , Enrica Marchigiani , Alessandro Andreadis, The AVANTI project: prototyping and evaluation with a cognitive walkthrough based on the Norman's model of action, Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, p.305-309, August 18-20, 1997, Amsterdam, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/263552.263629]
• 22: Rizzo, A. (2000) La natura degli artefatti e la loro progettazione. In sistemi Intelligenti a. XII n.3, Pages 437- 452.
• 23: Siegel, A. W., & White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of large-scale environments. In H.W. Reese (Ed.) Advances in Child Development and Behavior. 10, 9-55. New York: Academic Press.
• 24: Stevens, A., & Coupe, P. (1978). Distortions in judged spatial relations. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 422-437.
• 25: Taylor, H. A., & Tversky, B. (1996). Perspective in spatial descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 371-391.
• 26: Thorndyke, P. W. (1982). Distance estimation from cognitive maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 526 -550.
• 27: Thorndyke, P. W., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560-589.
• 28: Tversky, B. (1981). Distortions in memory for maps. Cognitive Psychology, 13 (3), 560-589.
• 29: Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• 30: Wartfosky, M. (1973). Models. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• 31: Bob G. Witmer , John H. Bailey , Bruce W. Knerr , Kimberley C. Parsons, Virtual spaces and real world places: transfer of route knowledge, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.45 n.4, p.413-428, Oct. 1996 [doi>10.1006/ijhc.1996.0060]
• 32: Wurman, R. S. (1997) Information Architects, Peter Bradford Editor, New York
• 33: Zhang, J. and Norman, D. A. (1994) Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science 18: 87-122.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.6 Learning

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors

  K. Computing Milieux
  K.6 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
      K.6.1 Project and People Management
          Subjects: Systems analysis and design

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Performance

Keywords:
information design, map, spatial learning