Comparative assessment of mobile navigation applications using 2D maps and augmented reality interfaces

Navigation has always been a problem for people, when they visit a location which they have not been before. Especially in universities with big campuses, new comers and guests need a guide for finding their way and getting to know the environment. Most of the universities provide guidance with signposts and web based maps. However, these tools are not the most user friendly ways of providing guidance service to people. In order to provide a better service for guidance purposes, mobile solutions should be developed. Since, nowadays, almost everyone carries a smart phone, mobile applications are useful tools to reach to the people and provide service. Mobile navigation applications are effective tools for helping people to find their way and explore their environment. The most popular navigation applications in the market are capable of navigating people to their destination as well as providing extra functionalities to help users to get familiar with their surroundings and to access information about locations that are in users' preferences. The main disadvantage of these applications are the weak GPS accuracy, which may confuse the users. Another disadvantage of these applications is that they do not have the detailed map of every area on the earth, which disables the users to use the applications if the roads or the pavements around them are not presented on the map. Therefore, there is a need for guidance service specialized for such areas. The main challenge for the mobile applications is to provide user-friendly interfaces, which also reveals a good user experience. In the design process of applications, developers should not only consider usability issues, but also consider the user satisfaction among the interaction between the user and the application. The type and quality of interaction that an application provides may take it to the top listings in the application stores, or may make people not even notice it. This thesis focuses on the user experience of mobile navigation applications by providing two types user interaction styles. The first type of user interaction style examined in the thesis provides guidance service with a 2D map interface. 2D map interfaces present a satellite map of earth and shows locations with 2D content, such as pinpoints, images, text to the users. This type of interface provides a bird's eye view of an area. The route information is shown to the user using lines on the map. Users' interaction with this interface may include finger gestures or voice commands. Users can manage the map by tilting, rotating, viewing, zooming in, and zooming out using fingers. The second type of user interaction examined in the thesis is the Augmented Reality (AR) browser interface. An AR interface enhances the real vision of the user with the digital information in order to provide new functionalities or more detailed information about what user sees. AR applications has been categorized as marker based and location based applications. In the scope of this thesis only the location based AR applications were examined. The location-based AR applications have been known as the AR browser applications with which users can browse or discover their environment. AR browsers use device's camera to access the real world image and show any digital media, such as, 2D images, text, videos, 3D models, onto the live camera view of the device. Users can explore their environment by browsing points of interests in such applications, without using any finger gestures. Another important contribution of this thesis is the guidance method called waypoint approach implemented in the AR interface, where users can get to their target location by following a series of waypoints displayed one after another onto the camera view. These interaction styles were implemented into two mobile navigation applications, which were intended to serve to visitors and newcomers of Istanbul Technical University for guidance purpose. The comparison of these two interfaces in terms of user experience was carried out by developing one sample application for each interface and conducting a field test and applying couple of questionnaires. Two groups of 10 participants were asked to follow two consequent routes. The first group took the first route guided by 2D map interface followed by the second route by AR interface and the second group took the first route guided by the AR interface followed by the second route by the 2D maps interface. Participants were asked to think aloud during the tests. After each test, participants were asked to answer NASA TLX and Post Study System Usability Questionnaires. The NASA TLX questionnaire was useful to compare these interfaces in terms of mental and physical workload, frustration, and performance of the participants. The PSSUQ were used to analyze these two interfaces in terms of user satisfaction, usefulness, information quality, and interface quality. In addition, participants' route completion times were also recorded. The results of the user experience tests revealed that the application with 2D map interface outperformed the AR based application in terms of all criteria. Participants travelled the routes in shorter times with the 2D map interface. The NASA TLX results showed that the 2D map interface was less demanding both mentally and physically, caused less frustration and required less effort from the participants. According to the PSSUQ results 2D map interface was more satisfactory for the users than the AR interface. In terms of degree of exploration of the environment, AR interface was found to be more useful. Participants stated that the combination of these two interfaces would be an improvement on top of the existing solutions, which is one of the future research ideas of these thesis. The user preferences may be also included in such systems. Moreover, instead of using smartphone, using optical head-mounted device could also create a whole new type of interaction. Both of the interfaces were also evaluated according to their usage of resources, such as GPU load, CPU load, and battery power. It was observed that the AR interface was more CPU and GPU power demanding since it uses camera and sensors of the device more intensely and frequently. Because of high ratio of usage of CPU and GPU, the AR interface consumed the battery power faster than the 2D map interface.