skip to main content
10.1145/2534931.2534937acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Assessing end-user interaction for multi-criteria local search with heatmap and icon-based visualizations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 November 2013Publication History

ABSTRACT

Nowadays local search services are essential to provide access to geographic entities and to satisfy users' spatial information needs. While the users of these services can look for the entities of interest on map interface via sequential search or browsing of individual categories, the visualization of multiple categories simultaneously is still not well supported. This limits the end users on abstracted view, exploration, and comparison of spatial areas with respect to multiple criteria of interests. In this research we investigate the end-user interaction for multi-criteria local search with two popular representations such as aggregated pixel and icon based visualizations. We present a grid-based interactive interface where users can select multiple criteria of interests and explore the relevant spatial regions via aggregated heatmap visualizations. We evaluate the design against icon/marker based visualization, which is an easy adaption of current commercial local search interfaces. We found that heatgrid visualization for local search performs as good as the more popular marker based interface. We report our findings on both visualizations regarding several user-centered aspects such as exploration ability, information overload and cognitive demand.

References

  1. D. Ahlers and S. Boll. Location-based Web search. In A. Scharl and K. Tochtermann, editors, The Geospatial Web. Springer, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. G. Andrienko, N. Andrienko, and P. Jankowski. Building spatial decision support tools for individuals and groups. Journal of Decision Systems, 12(2):193--208, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. N. Andrienko and G. Andrienko. Informed spatial decisions through coordinated views. Information Visualization, 2(4):270--285, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Bostock, V. Ogievetsky, and J. Heer. D3: Data-driven documents. IEEE Trans. Visualization & Comp. Graphics (Proc. InfoVis), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren, and M.-J. Kraak. Exploring Geovisualization. International Cartographic Association Series. Elsevier, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. D. Fisher. Hotmap: Looking at geographic attention. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1184--1191, Nov. 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Garlandini and S. I. Fabrikant. Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of visual variables for geographic information visualization. In Spatial Information Theory, pages 195--211. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. R. Greene, R. Devillers, J. E. Luther, and B. G. Eddy. GIS-based multiple-criteria decision analysis. Geography Compass, 5(6), 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. A. Harrower and C. A. Brewer. Colorbrewer.org: An online tool for selecting color schemes for maps. The Cartographic Journal, 40(1), 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. P. Indyk. Nearest Neighbors In High-Dimensional Spaces, chapter 39, pages 877--892. CRC Press, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. P. Jankowski, N. Andrienko, and G. Andrienko. Map-centred exploratory approach to multiple criteria spatial decision making. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(2):101--127, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. C. Kumar, W. Heuten, and S. Boll. Geovisualization for end user decision support: Easy and effective exploration of urban areas. In GeoViz_Hamburg 2013: Interactive Maps That Help People Think, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. C. Kumar, W. Heuten, and S. Boll. Visual interfaces to support spatial decision making in geographic information retrieval. In CD-ARES 2013, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. C. Kumar, B. Poppinga, D. Haeuser, W. Heuten, and S. Boll. Geovisual interfaces to find suitable urban regions for citizens: a user-centered requirement study. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication, UbiComp '13 Adjunct, pages 741--744, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Lloyd. Evaluating human-centered approaches for geovisualization. PhD thesis, City University London, September 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. A. M. MacEachren and D. DiBiase. Animated maps of aggregate data: Conceptual and practical problems. CaGIS, 18(4), 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. M. Maguire. Methods to support human-centred design. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 55(4):587--634, Oct. 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. C. Makropoulos and D. Butler. Spatial ordered weighted averaging: incorporating spatially variable attitude towards risk in spatial multi-criteria decision-making. Environmental Modelling & Software, 21(1):69--84, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. R. B. McMaster and I. Muehlenhaus. Cartographic symbolization and visualization, chapter 13, pages 517--531. Taylor and Francis, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. K. Miettinen. Survey of methods to visualize alternatives in multiple criteria decision making problems. OR Spectrum, pages 1--35, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. V. Moere, M. Tomitsch, C. Wimmer, B. Christoph, and T. Grechenig. Evaluating the effect of style in information visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18:2739--2748, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. A.-M. Nivala, L. T. Sarjakoski, and T. Sarjakoski. User-centred design and development of a mobile map service. In H. Hauska and H. Tveite, editors, Scandinavian Research Conference on Geographical Information Science, Proceedings of the ScanGIS, pages 109--123, Stockholm, Sweden, June13--15 2005. ScanGIS'2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Noellenburg. Geographic visualization. In A. Kerren, A. Ebert, and J. Meyer, editors, Human-Centered Visualization Environments, volume 4417 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 257--294. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. C. Rinner and A. Heppleston. The spatial dimensions of multi-criteria evaluation -- case study of a home buyer's spatial decision support system. In Geographic Information Science. 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. C. Rinner and M. Raubal. Personalized multi-criteria decision strategies in location-based decision support. JGIS, 10, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Assessing end-user interaction for multi-criteria local search with heatmap and icon-based visualizations

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        MapInteract '13: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on MapInteraction
        November 2013
        97 pages
        ISBN:9781450325363
        DOI:10.1145/2534931

        Copyright © 2013 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 5 November 2013

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        MapInteract '13 Paper Acceptance Rate17of20submissions,85%Overall Acceptance Rate17of20submissions,85%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader