Dynamic route descriptions: tradeoffs by usage goals and user characteristics

ABSTRACT

Principles are empirically established for various multimodal representations of route descriptions that are found to facilitate aspects of user navigation performance on significantly different levels. Some representations clearly minimize navigation completion time, navigation error, and/or distraction to focal view, while others hinder these goals. Furthermore, user characteristics such as brain lateralization and information type preference relate to significant differences in representation effectiveness. "Best Choice" route depictions are presented based on experimental participant performance data from a simulated navigation task. Results may be useful in information design for helmet-mounted displays and other wearable computing devices.

REFERENCES

• 1: Michelle Q. Wang Baldonado , Allison Woodruff , Allan Kuchinsky, Guidelines for using multiple views in information visualization, Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, p.110-119, May 2000, Palermo, Italy [doi>10.1145/345513.345271]
• 2: Baus, J., Butz, A., Krueger, A., Lohse, M. Some remarks in automated sketch generation for mobile route descriptions. In Conference Companion to the 1st International Symposium on Smart Graphics, Hawthorne, NY, March 2001.
• 3: Jörg Baus , Antonio Krüger , Wolfgang Wahlster, A resource-adaptive mobile navigation system, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces, January 13-16, 2002, San Francisco, California, USA [doi>10.1145/502716.502723]
• 4: Rudolph P. Darken , John L. Sibert, Wayfinding strategies and behaviors in large virtual worlds, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground, p.142-149, April 13-18, 1996, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/238386.238459]
• 5: Darwin, C. J., Turvey, M. T. & Crowder, R. G. The auditory analogue of the Sperling partial report procedure: Evidence for brief auditory storage. Cognitive Psychology, 3: 225-267, 1972.
• 6: Driscoll, P. Psychology of Learning for Instruction. 2nd edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Massachusetts, 2000.
• 7: Kahneman, D. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
• 8: Left vs. right: Which side are you on?, http://www.mtsu.edu/~devstud/advisor/LRBrain.html.
• 9: Paul P. Maglio , Christopher S. Campbell, Tradeoffs in displaying peripheral information, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.241-248, April 01-06, 2000, The Hague, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/332040.332438]
• 10: McCrickard, D. S., Catrambone, R., Stasko, J. T. Evaluating animation in the periphery as a mechanism for maintaining awareness. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC.13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2001), Tokyo, Japan, July 2001, pp. 148-156.
• 11: Somervell, J., Chewar, C. M., McCrickard, D. S. Evaluating graphical vs. textual displays in dual-task environments. In Submitted to the 40th Annual Southeast ACM Conference, Raleigh, NC, April 2002.
• 12: David Tessendorf , C. M. Chewar , Ali Ndiwalana , Jon Pryor , D. Scott McCrickard , Chris North, An ordering of secondary task display attributes, CHI '02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA [doi>10.1145/506443.506503]
• 13: Wickens, C. D., Seidler, K. S. Information access in a dual-task context: Testing a model of optimal strategy selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(3): 196-215, 1997.

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
dynamic information design, notification systems, route descriptions, secondary displays, way-finding