Lecture 8: Framework for Effective Design

Transcription

PS499
Transit Maps:
Past, Present & Future
Lecture 8: Framework
for Effective Design
Maxwell J Roberts
Department of Psychology
University of Essex
www.tubemapcentral.com
version date: 09/03/2016
Framework for Effective Design
• Prescriptions for transit map design from
•
•
•
•
•
Journalists
London Transport
Designers
Computer scientists
General public
• Towards a framework for effective design
•
•
•
•
Overview of the framework
Henry Beck and the framework
Framework elements in detail
Framework practicalities and realities
• Prescriptions for transit map design from
•
•
•
•
•
Journalists
London Transport
Designers
Computer scientists
General public
• See Roberts (2014) for details
Prescriptions from Journalists
• Don’t distort geography!
• Don’t leave the river off!
• Throw it all away!
• And try something completely different!
Prescriptions from London Transport
• 1993 London Regional Transport style guide
compiled by Henrion, Ludlow, & Schmidt
Prescriptions from London Transport
• 1993 LRT Style guide: lots of minutiae but
nothing about the overall configuration
Prescriptions from Designers
• Conpiled by Ovenden (2008)
Good practice in diagram design
• Station names must be close to station marker
(and clearly relate to only one station).
• Equalise station spacing wherever possible (it
looks neater).
• Line width should be in aesthetic balance (with
the overall space and point size of station names.
• All lines the same width (unless they are part of
MÉTRO
- TRAMWAY
- CRISTALIS rail etc).
another
service
i.e. Tram/mainline
• Station markers should
be universal (except at
C
interchanges)
plan
lignes fortes
de Lyon
CUIRE
HENON
ô
Rh
ne
CITÉ
INTERNATIONALE
La Doua - Gaston Berger
Musée d’Art Contemporain
Gare
Museum
HÔTEL
DE VILLE
VALMY
Louis Pradel
GARE
ST PAUL
Terreaux
Gare
GORGE
DE LOUP
Gare
Gare
BELLECOUR
ST JUST
AMPÈRE
Liberté
GUILLOTIÈRE
Victor Hugo
Gare
Saint-André
Rue de l'Université
PERRACHE
Lefèvre
Pont des Planches
L. BONNEVAY
GARE
PART-DIEU
Saxe - Préfecture
MINIMES
Théâtres Romains
Vivier Merle
Part-Dieu - Servient
Palais de Justice Mairie du 3 ème
VIEUX LYON
Cathédrale St-Jean
Cuzin Stalingrad
A
PART-DIEU
Cordeliers Bourse
Vaulx Hôtel de Ville
Astroballe
Léon Blum
Cyprian Léon Blum
Bon Coin
Poizat
Blanqui
Bernaix
Centre Mémoires et Société
Grandclément
Verlaine
EN
VAULX- VELIN
L. Braille-Montaland
Alsace
La Soie
Institut d’Art Contemporain
Ste-Geneviève
Thiers -Lafayette
Bel Air Les Brosses
Décines Centre
Gare de
Dauphiné
Villeurbanne
Lacassagne
Collège
Bellecombe
Part DieuJules Favre
Garibaldi-Lafayette
Les Halles Paul Bocuse
Saxe-Lafayette
GARE
Molière
CORDELIERS
Grand Vire
RÉPUBLIQUE - Villeurbanne
GRATTE-CIEL
FLACHET
CUSSET
B
BROTTEAUX
Bât d’Argent
FOURVIÈRE
Lesire
CHARPENNES
FOCH
La
Feuillée
Mas du Taureau
Charles Hernu
Vitton-Belges
MASSÉNA
C
Vaulx les Grolières
Le Tonkin
Parc Tête d’Or-Duquesne
CROIX-PAQUET
La Grappinière
Condorcet
Parc Tête d’OrChurchill
D
EN
VAULX- VELIN
Université Lyon 1
Interpol
CROIX-ROUSSE
GARE
DE VAISE
IUT-FEYSSINE
Croix-Luizet
INSA - Einstein
Centre de Congrès
Saône
Reconnaissance
Balzac
Décines
Grand Large
Villette
PLACE
GUICHARD
Meyzieu Gare
Bourse du Travail
SAXE-GAMBETTA
MEYZIEU
Z.I.
GARIBALDI
SANS-SOUCI
MONPLAISIR-LUMIÈRE
GRANGE BLANCHE
Quai
Claude
Bernard
Ambroise Paré
Vinatier
Essarts - Iris
Boutasse - Camille Rousset
Hôtel de Ville - Bron
Les Alizés
Rebufer
Simplification, Alegibility and common sense are the prime
ingriedients of great design. A detail from the Lyon diagram
MONTROCHET
by the
Lattitude agency
demonstrates how a 20 degree
Métro
angle can be just as effective as 45.
Suchet
Centre
Berthelot
Sainte-Blandine
JEAN MACÉ
Tramway
Jean XXIII
Maryse Bastié
Garibaldi - Berthelot
Route de Vienne
Jet d'eau
Mendès France
Villon
PLACE
JEAN JAURÈS
Rhône
Bachut
Mairie du 8 ème
LAËNNEC
Parilly - Université
Europe - Université
MERMOZ
PINEL
Porte des Alpes
Parc Technologique
Hauts de Feuilly
Salvador Allende
Alfred de Vigny
St-Priest-Hôtel de Ville
• Make a clear distinction between ordinary
stations and interchanges (this greatly helps
B
D
passengers planning journeys).
Accessibilité
• Interchange station markers should be
universal (though at extremely complex or
lengthy interchanges a white-line connector or
variation of this symbol may be necessary as
long as it fits into the overall style of the others)
• Station markers should be ticks or ‘blobs’ (dots,
open circles and ‘blobs’ are the most common.
Ticks come second. Avoid ‘line breaks’ as these
can be extremely confusing).
• Stations names should all be horizontal (if at
an angle, all should follow same angle; mixing
horizontal names with angled ones looks bad).
• Background colour is generally white (pastel
shades can be used if they do not clash with the
line colours. Very dark backgrounds (black, dark
Trolleybus Cristalis
DEBOURG
PARILLY
Esplanade des Arts
Jules Ferry
Agence commerciale TCL
Parc relais TCL
Navette aéroport
Office de tourisme
STADE
DE GERLAND
Cordière
GARE DE
VÉNISSIEUX
Gare
Toutes les stations de métro, tramway et trolleybus Cristalis sont accessibles à l’exception de la station Croix-Paquet.
Pour connaître la disponibilité des ascenseurs, appeler le 04 26 10 12 12 ou consulter le site internet www.acces.tcl.fr
ST-PRIEST
Bel-Air
© latitude - cartagène n45-10/07
This list of concepts is sometimes abbreviated
throughout the book as “Good design practice”
• Remove unnecessary topography (though
leaving important waterways or green spaces –
often stylised – is sometimes considered useful
for a vague orientation). Vignelli says he “I would
even love to had dropped all surface geography
from the New York Subway diagram”.
• No streets are shown (though occasionally key
highways like arterial roads may be acceptable).
• Straighten-out lines (avoid changing direction of
a line unless totally necessary - Roberts says “an
unnecessary change of direction is a design flaw”).
• Use only horizontal and vertical lines and one
diagonal angle. (Spandonine says: ...“to use any
more is both pointless and untidy”
• 45 degrees is the most common angle for all
diagonals (though 20, 30, 35, 60 and 65 have
also been utilized to good effect).
• Create at least one simple axis (north-south or
east-west if relevant, though stylised ‘circle’ lines
are also utilized as perfect spheres).
• Compress the suburbs (or areas where stations
are spaced far apart geographically).
• Enlarge central area (or areas where stations are
in close proximity geographically. Beck said: “I
tried to imagine that I was using a convex lens.....to
present the central area on a larger scale”).
• Do not change line direction under a station
marker (especially at correspondences). Foale
says: “The eye can cope with sections of line
passing under things but if a direction change
occurs while the line is beneath a symbol or
another line, it can be quite confusing”
• Do not change line direction more than once
between stations. (It hampers clarity).
• Leave adequate space for the text of the
station name (it’s as crucial as plotting the lines)
Foale says; “the space for text is as important as
the trajectory of the lines”.
• Station names should NEVER crash over lines.
blues etc) can work with the same proviso but
primary colour backgrounds should be avoided).
• Simplify complex interchanges/service
patterns (badly drawn correspondences will let
down the entire diagram).
• Keep all station names the same size (though
in systems where terminal stations play a key
role, there may be a good reason to enhance
their appearance in bold/caps/reversed out etc).
• Keep all stations on the same side of the line
(this is rarely possible all over but looks neat on a
long simple line).
• Use upper and lower case text (it is more
humane).
• Stay within corporate identity (the in-house
operator style should permeate every feature of
the diagram - anything that does not fit will look
hideously out of place when the diagram is on
display in situ).
• All text must be in the operator’s house font
(never condense/alter a font to squeeze text in to
a badly designed space).
• Station names to read EXACTLY as on the platform signage (this avoids passenger confusion.
Abbreviations on the map to squeeze-in text are
unacceptable – however heritage signage may
still show abbreviations, in this case use the full
name on the diagram). Woods says “it’s amazing
how many official maps spell their own station
names incorrectly”
• Diagrams do not need to be totally abstract
(with modern computer graphics and good
design most diagrams can give reasonable reflection of at least the key features of city geography
without losing all points above). Roberts says:
“preserve spatial relationships where possible”
• REMEMBER: Someone else may re-design your
diagram at a later stage! Beck said: [the
diagram] “…must be thought of as a living and
changing thing, with schematic and spare-part
osteopathy going on all the time”.
Prescriptions from Designers
• A sensible collection on the surface?
• A large list, many criteria to take account of
• No criteria overtly contradictory
• Might be issues with prioritisation
• Are all of these necessary for usability …
… or might some merely affect attractiveness?
Do not change line direction more than once between stations
Stations names should all be horizontal
… or could breaking some of them yield benefits?
Use only horizontal and vertical lines and one diagonal angle
metro graph (G, L), draw each metro line L ∈ L as a
continuous curve along its edge sequence in G such that the
total number of metro line crossings is minimum.
a balanced local feature density in the whole map.
(R10) Use unobtrusive and clearly legible placement of station
labels. The precise interpretation of this rule differs beThis line layout problem can in fact be considered indetween different layout algorithms. Overlapping labels and
pendently of Problems 1 and 2 since it is neither affected by
occlusions are usually prohibited. Horizontally aligned
the geometry of the layout (only the network topology matters,
text is mostly preferred, but horizontal metro lines can
which is the same in all metro maps) nor by the label placement.
also be labeled with diagonal labels. Often all labels of
At its combinatorial core, we need to determine for each edge
stations between two neighboring interchanges are placed
and each incident vertex a corresponding order of all metro
coherently on the same side of the path between them.
each vertex
v ∈All
V ,line
place
each station
name
close to its
(R4) Metro lines pass straight through interchanges. Interlinesfor
sharing
the edge.
crossings
are fully
determined
vertexorders.
position such that no label intersects any other label or
change stations are higher degree vertices, where it is
by these
II. N ETWORK
L AYOUT
A LGORITHMS
feature of G.
particularly
important
that metro
lines are visually easy
to follow without ambiguities. This is supported if no
B. Design
Principles
Different
methods apply additional design-specific con- In this section we cover algorithms for Problem 1, the most
metro line changes its orientation in an interchange.
straints
positions,
for example,
one
Next,
weonlistthea possible
collectionlabel
of design
principles
and rules
onmay studied
subtask
in automated
metro mapThis
design.
mentioned
(R5) Use large
angular resolution.
rule As
aims
to distribute
require
horizontally
aligned
labels or
allow the
of diagonal
which
the existing
metro
map layout
methods
are use
based.
We
above, some
methods
take
an
integrated
approach
for
the
layout
incident edges evenly around vertices.
onewhen
may discussing
allow introducing
line layout
breaks algorithms.
in long station and labeling of a metro map. In this case we also describe
referlabels,
to thisorlist
individual
(R6) Minimize geometric distortion and displacement. Many
Obviously,
the labeling
that can
beofachieved
Not names.
every method
implements
all ofquality
these rules.
Most
the
the labeling
procedures.
Westay
start
discussion
of as
approaches
try to
as with
closeatoshort
the input
geometry
by
a
solution
of
Problem
2
depends
directly
on
the
geometry
rules are used to define the constraints and quality measures for
the computational
problem
complexity
before
summarizing
possible in
order to
maintain the
user’s
mental mapthe
of the
of the1,layout
when solving
Problem
1. Thus many
Problem
but onecomputed
rule also specifies
constraints
for Problem
2.
various layout
algorithms
that
have
been
proposed
over
the
last
city and the resemblance to geography. Some methods
automated layout methods combine the two problems and solve 15 years, grouped by the underlying algorithmic principles.
apply this rule only locally, that is, the relative positions
(R1)them
Do in
notanchange
the network
topology.
integrated
manner, where
the This
graphimportant
layout must
of pairs of adjacent vertices should be maintained.
rule prohibits
such
asplacement.
modifying
provide
sufficientstructural
space fordistortions
conflict-free
label
(R7) Use uniform edge lengths. Since distances in a metro
the circular edge orders around vertices or introducing
A. Problem Complexity
A third task
has been
from anterms
algorithmic
map are not linked to geographic distances, any edge in
additional
edgethat
crossings.
In considered
graph theoretical
the
perspective
is toembedding
compute an
routing
of the (colored)
the layout
has thethe
same
length.ofThis
often
combinatorial
of optimal
the layout
is preserved.
This
It is known
thatideally
minimizing
number
bends
in implies
an
metro
lines
along
the
edges
of
the
underlying
graph.
Here
the
partsmap)
of the
network
the city
center are
rule is respected by almost all methods and thus already
octilinear that
graphdense
(or metro
layout
is an in
NP-hard
optimizaoptimization
is to minimize
the number
of line crossings tion problem
enlarged
and result
peripheral
stations
move
together.
included in goal
the definition
of Problem
1.
[9]. This
already
applies
to acloser
very limited
partially
parallel
metro lines,
which
appear
whenever
(R8)
Keep rules,
unrelated
ensures
that there
(R2)ofRestrict
edge
orientations.
The vast
majority
of metro
map two set of
design
thatfeatures
is, apartapart.
fromThis
rulerule
(R1),
enforcing
parallel
meetuses
andthe
split
at opposite
some
between non-incident
vertices,
layout lines
methods
octilinear
set ofsides.
orientations, that
rule (R2) is
with
the minimal
octilinearclearance
set of orientations
suffices to show
edges, and around station labels.
is,Problem
horizontal,
vertical,
±45°-diagonal
3 (Metro
Lineand
Crossings):
Givenorientations.
an embedded the NP-hardness of optimizing rule (R3). This is in contrast
(R9) minimization
Avoid large empty
the map. This
asks for
Othergraph
orientations
hexalinear
(based
on L60°as a to bend
in the spaces
case ofinorthogonal
graphrule
layout,
metro
(G, L), such
draw aseach
metro line
L ∈
a balanced
local feature
in the whole
map.
angles) are
possible,
too.edge
Some
methods
dosuch
not that
use the that is, rule
(R2) restricting
edgesdensity
to horizontal
and vertical
continuous
curve
along its
sequence
in G
(R10) Use
unobtrusive
legible placement
of station
straight-line
all and
resort is
to minimum.
curvilinear edges,
orientations
only,
which canand
be clearly
solved efficiently
using network
total
number ofedges
metroat line
crossings
labels. [10].
The precise
interpretation
this polynomialrule differs befor example, based on Bézier splines.
flow algorithms
As a consequence,
no of
exact
This each
line individual
layout problem
be consideredasinde- time algorithms
tween different
layout algorithms.
labels and
(R3) Draw
metro can
line in
as fact
straight/monotone
for optimizing
metro mapOverlapping
layouts involving
pendently
1 and
2 since
is neitherpolyline
affected by diagonal edge
occlusions
are usually
Horizontally
aligned
possible of
andProblems
avoid sharp
turns.
For ittraditional
orientations
can beprohibited.
expected and
all suggested
thedrawings,
geometrythis
of the
layoutto(only
thefew
network
matters, methods are
textlimited
is mostly
preferred,
butanother,
horizontal
metro lines
implies
use as
bendstopology
as possible
in some
way or
for example,
by can
which
the same in
all metro
maps)
by the label
placement. relaxing constraints,
also be labeled
with heuristics,
diagonal labels.
Often all labels
with ispreferably
obtuse
angles.
Fornor
curvilinear
drawings,
applying
approximations,
and of
Atpreferably
its combinatorial
we need
determine
for points
each edge local optimization
stations between
two using
neighboring
interchanges
placed
uniformcore,
curvature
andtofew
inflection
techniques,
asymptotically
sloware
exact
and
each be
incident
coherently
on the the
same
sidegraphs.
of the path between them.
should
used. vertex a corresponding order of all metro computations
or restricting
input
lines sharing the edge. All line crossings are fully determined
by these orders.
Prescriptions from Computer Scientists
• Taken from
Nöllenburg (2014)
• A shorter list than Ovenden (2008)
• But many correspond with Ovenden’s list
• Highlights:
• R2: use a limited number of angles
• R3: keep lines straight
• Interchanges: do not change direction under one
(R4), space angles of crossing lines widely (R5)
• R6: minimise topographical distortion
• Overall balance: have evenly-spaced stations (R7)
and avoid large empty spaces (R9)
• R10: apply station names neatly, avoid obstruction
• List is intended as a specification for automated
computerised creation of transit maps
• Focus is on what configural criteria that are
definable and can be measured and scored
• Too many criteria and the computer algorithms
would be overwhelmed by degrees of freedom
• Subtleties are missing compared with Ovenden
(2008) but researchers aiming for feasible criteria
Prescriptions from the General Public
• Any transit map usability prediction entails
some sort of theory of effective design
• Intuitive personal theories need not be fully
specified or even internally-consistent
• Determines products and outcomes
• Transport manager: Specification, acceptance
• Designer: Recommendations and product
• Media commentator: Choice of headlines
• General Public: Response to new design
• What if disagreement, can’t all be right?
• Roberts, Gray, & Lesnik (2016) investigated
these intuitive theories of design
• Experiment 2: 649 people rated 9 matched
London maps for usability/attractiveness
• Design rules
Octolinear
Multilinear
Curvilinear
• Design priority – names on maps conceal these
Compact (high complexity trajectories)
Geographical (topographical, complex)
Stylised (low complexity trajectories)
• Roberts, Gray, & Lesnik (2016) investigated
these intuitive theories of design
• Experiment 3 (E3): 80 people planned journeys
using three stylised Berlin maps, then rated six
maps for usability/attractiveness
• Design rules
Octolinear
Multilinear
Curvilinear
• City (stylised, low complexity trajectories)
Berlin
London
• Usability ratings
by subjects
• Very high for
octolinearity
• High for
simplicity
• London only:
multilinear
preferred to
curvilinear?
• Berlin: curvilinear
preferred to
multilinear?
Usability Ratings
90.0
89 88
75
67.5
67
55
45.0
54
48
54
47
47
39
34
28
22.5
28
21
0
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
Octolinear
Multilinear
Complex
Simple
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
Curvilinear
Berlin!
(simple)
N.B. Compact and geographical maps not
distinguished her, both labelled complex,
stylised maps all labelled as simple
• Attractiveness
ratings by subjects
• London only: very
high for octolinear
• High for simplicity
• Curvilinear
preferred to
multilinear
Attractiveness Ratings
90.0
86
83
74
67.5
67
60
45.0
48
54
53
41
22.5
19
0
23
36
25
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
Octolinear
Multilinear
Complex
43 41
Simple
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
Curvilinear
Berlin!
(simple)
N.B. Compact and geographical maps not
distinguished her, both labelled complex,
stylised maps all labelled as simple
• Curvilinear rated more attractive than usable
• Multilinear rated more usable than attractive
• Suggests separate sources for ratings
Usability Ratings
90.0
90.0
89 88
86
75
67.5
67
83
74
67.5
67
60
55
45.0
Attractiveness Ratings
54
48
54
47
47
48
41
39
34
28
22.5
45.0
54
53
28
22.5
21
0
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
Octolinear
Multilinear
Complex
Simple
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
Curvilinear
Berlin!
(simple)
19
0
23
36
25
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
Octolinear
Multilinear
Complex
43 41
Simple
E2 E2 E2 E3 E3
Curvilinear
Berlin!
(simple)
• 183 people sufficiently consistent to be classed
as holding a clear theory of effective design
• Identified 61: strong octolinearity theory
octolinear maps more usable than any alternative
• Further 31: weak octolinearity theory
octolinear maps most usable within same design priority
• Further 32: linearity theory
curvilinear maps least usable within same design priority
• Further 54: simplicity theory
simplest trajectories most usable within same design rules
• Further 5: topographicity theory
topographical maps most usable within same design rules
• 270 plausible experts at transit map design
• Transport professionals
• Design professionals
• People aware of research into design issues
• No differences from everyone else
• Tendencies: overall rating scores very similar
• Coherence: similar proportion categorisable
• Sophistication: prevalence of theories the same
• Everyone is the general public in terms of
theories of effective transit map design!
Prescriptions for Transit Map Design
• No grand unified theory
• A disorderly collection
• Isolated and disconnected heuristics,
principles, and rules of thumb
• Derived from logic, empirical testing,
observation, intuition, or prejudice
• Leads to poor specification, over-simplification,
inconsistencies and conflict
• Empirical evidence can identify those broadly
correct, correct with caveats, and failures?
• Towards a framework for effective design
•
•
•
•
Overview of the framework
Henry Beck and the framework
Framework elements in detail
Framework practicalities and realities
Overview of the Framework
• What is the framework?
• An attempt to identify, integrate and categorise
prescriptions/design aspects of transit maps
• These might potentially impinge on actual
usability and aesthetic responses to them
• As such, not a theory of effective design, and
not falsifiable; these could be important, or not
• With everything slotted into place, relative
contributions and importance can be identified
• E.g. Roberts (2012, 2014); Roberts et al. (2013)
• See Lecture 4 for details on usability studies
• See Lectures 5/6 for on psychological theories
• Individual theories of design = particular
fleshings out of the framework
• These identify elements of the framework
that are particularly important for usability
• These prioritise between elements of the
framework for relative importance for usability
• An individual theory of design
is testable and falsifiable
• Choose design rules and
implement them to maximise:
• Simplicity: simple line trajectories
• Coherence: lines relate to give good shape
• Harmony: aesthetically pleasing elements
• Balance: evenly spread across the page
• Topographicity: geography distorted with care
Henry Beck and the Framework
• Beck seems to have implicitly known
about the elements of this framework
Henry Beck and the Framework
• Beck’s first design remarkable, a textbook
case of following this framework
• Early success misleads people, they
misinterpret criteria for effective design
• Success NOT the application of octolinearity;
merely using a ruler does not guarantee success
• Success in effectiveness of Beck’s implementation
within the constraints of octolinearity
• Misunderstanding leads to many
ineffective designs today
Framework Elements: Simplicity
• Definition
Line trajectories should be simple, corners/
changes of direction should be minimised
What is the point of taking the twists and turns of
reality and turning them into zig-zags instead? Reality
hasn’t been simplified, all that has happened is that
the shape of the complexity has been changed
Reality
Beck’s Design
Poor
Simplicity
• Poor simplicity (reality): Paris Metro (2015)
B
C
RER: au delà de cette limite,
en direction de la banlieue,
la tarification dépend de la distance.
Les tickets t+ ne sont pas valables.
Paris
( fin 2014)
Fin de lignes
en correspondance
Le Luth
Timbaud
Le Village
Parc
des Chanteraines
Gennevilliers
Cergy
Faubourg
de l’Arche
Poissy
Brochant
Anatole France
Louise Michel
St-Germain
en-Laye
Puteaux
Malesherbes
Monceau*
Les Sablons
Neuilly–Porte Maillot
Boissière
Rue
de la Pompe
Avenue
Henri Martin
Iéna
La Muette*
Boulainvilliers
Ranelagh
Les Milons
6
Michel
Ange
Auteuil*
Porte
d’Auteuil*
Boulogne
Jean Jaurès
Michel
Ange
Molitor
Parc
de St-Cloud
Boulogne
Pont de St-Cloud*
Église
d’Auteuil
Dupleix
Javel
André
Citroën
Mirabeau
Pont
du Garigliano
Porte
de St-Cloud
Musée
de Sèvres
Versailles
Château
Viroflay
Rive Gauche
Meudon
sur-Seine
Les
Moulineaux
Henri
Farman
Malakoff
Rue Étienne Dolet*
Mairie d’Issy
Meudon–Val-Fleury
Chaville–Vélizy
Tolbiac
Maison
Blanche*
Poterne
des Peupliers
Le Kremlin
Bicêtre
Laplace
Villejuif
Léo Lagrange
Massy–Palaiseau
Vincennes
St-Mandé*
Boissy-St-Léger
Alexandra
David-Néel
Bérault
Château
de Vincennes*
Montempoivre
6
Michel
Bizot
Porte Dorée
Porte de Charenton
Charenton–Écoles
Ivry
sur-Seine
Maisons-Alfort
Alfortville
Pierre et Marie
Curie
Mairie d’Ivry
Liberté
Baron
Le Roy
Vitry
sur-Seine
Le Vert
de Maisons
Les Ardoines
Choisy-le-Roi
La Fraternelle
École Vétérinaire
de Maisons-Alfort*
Maisons-Alfort–Stade
Maisons-Alfort
Les Juilliottes
Créteil–L’Échat
Créteil–Université
Créteil–Préfecture
Créteil
Pointe du Lac*
Tarification spéciale
Orly
Ouest
D
Avenue
de France
Maryse
Bastié
Villejuif–Louis Aragon*
Bourg-la-Reine
Orly Orly
Sud
E
Aéroport d’Orly
Versailles–Chantiers
Dourdan
St-Martin-d’Étampes
Athis-Mons
5
Marne-la-Vallée
Parcs Disneyland
a
Porte de
Vincennes*
Cour
St-Émilion
Villejuif
Paul Vaillant-Couturier
Bagneux
Robinson
Nation
Bel-Air*
Bibliothèque
Fr. Mitterrand*
Olympiades
Croix de Chavaux*
Robespierre
b
Daumesnil*
Chevaleret
Porte
Porte
Porte
d’Italie de Choisy d’Ivry*
Gentilly
Arcueil–Cachan
( fin 2014)
Antony
C
Stade
Charléty
Mairie
de Montrouge*
Châtillon–Montrouge
L’O
n
de M de
Vé airie
li
In
ov Lo zy
el
u
Pa vois
rc
N
D
ew ord
oit
M
in
eu Vé e
Ge don lizy
-l
o
2
Ge rge a-Fo
s
or
r
ge Mil êt
la
s
Po nd
m y
p
M Pav ido
u
ail
é
de Bla
H
la nc
ôp
P
ita lain
l
e
So Béc
le
lè
il
r
Le e
va
nt
B
Cité
Universitaire
Montsouris
Jean
Moulin
f
@
Vauban
Centre de Châtillon
Parc André Malraux
Division Leclerc
Saint-Rémy
lès-Chevreuse
( fin 2014)
Porte
Porte de Vanves d’Orléans
Alésia*
Mairie
de Montreuil
Porte de Montreuil
Buzenval
Bercy
Campo
Quai
Formio* de la Gare*
Nationale*
Gallieni
Porte
de Bagnolet
Dugommier
Saint
Marcel
Place
d’Italie
Glacière
Plaisance*
Didot
Corvisart
Gare
de Lyon
4
Marie
de Miribel
Picpus
Montgallet
Gare
d’Austerlitz
Porte des Lilas
Adrienne
Bolland
Séverine
Alexandre
Dumas
Reuilly–Diderot
Les
Gobelins
Saint-Jacques
Mouton
Duvernet
Gambetta*
Maraîchers
Avron
Rue
des Boulets
Quai de
la Rapée
Censier
Daubenton*
Denfert
Rochereau*
Gaîté
Malakoff
Plateau de Vanves
Corentin Celton*
Port-Royal
Raspail
Pernety
Brancion
Issy
f
@
A
Georges
Brassens
Vavin
Voltaire*
Charonne
Ledru-Rollin*
Faidherbe
Chaligny
Place
Monge
3
Mairie des Lilas*
Père
Lachaise
Saint-Ambroise
Bréguet
Sabin
Tournan
Pelleport
Philippe
Auguste*
Chelles
Gournay
Noisy-le-Sec
Pré
St-Gervais
Saint-Fargeau
Rue
Saint-Maur*
Richard
Lenoir
Petit
Noisy
Place Télégraphe
des Fêtes*
Ménilmontant
Bastille*
Jussieu*
Notre-Dame
des-Champs
Edgar
Quinet*
Volontaires
Parc des Expositions
Porte
d’Issy
8
Vélizy
Saint-Quentin
Villacoublay
en-Yvelines
Robert Wagner
Pasteur*
Porte de Versailles
Suzanne
Lenglen
Issy
Val de Seine
Luxembourg
St-Placide*
Gare
Montparnasse
Convention
Balard*
Saint-Sulpice
Vaugirard*
Desnouettes
Jacques-Henri
Lartigue
Brimborion
Sèvres
Lecourbe
Sully
Morland*
Cluny
La Sorbonne
Maubert
Mutualité
Cardinal
Lemoine
St-Michel
Rennes
St-Paul
Butte du
Chapeau Rouge
Couronnes
Parmentier
St-Sébastien
Froissart
Pont
de Bondy
Botzaris
Jourdain
Oberkampf*
Chemin Vert
Pont Marie
St-Michel
Notre-Dame
Mabillon Odéon*
Montparnasse
Falguière Bienvenüe*
Commerce
Lourmel
Billancourt
Pont
de Sèvres
Duroc*
Ségur
Cambronne
Boucicaut*
a
Marcel Sembat*
7
Vaneau
Félix Faure
Chardon
Lagache
Exelmans
Rue
du Bac
Saint
François Sèvres
Xavier* Babylone*
La Motte
Picquet
Grenelle*
Charles
Michels*
Saint
Germain
des-Prés
Pyrénées
2
Auguste Delaune
Hôpital
Robert Debré
Buttes
Chaumont
République*
Hôtel de Ville
Cité*
Colonel
Fabien*
Goncourt*
Rambuteau*
Hoche
Danube
d
@
Jean Rostand
Bolivar
Filles
du Calvaire
Châtelet
Pont Neuf
Solférino
Varenne
Louis
Blanc
Château
Landon*
Temple
Arts et
Métiers
Châtelet
Les Halles
Les Halles*
Louvre
Rivoli*
Assemblée Nationale
Champ de Mars
Tour Eiffel
École
Bir-Hakeim
Militaire
Avenue
Émile Zola
Javel
Palais Royal
Musée du
Louvre
Tuileries
Musée d’Orsay
Invalides*
La Tour
Maubourg
Passy
Avenue
du Pdt Kennedy
Jasmin
Pont
de l’Alma
Réaumur
Sébastopol*
Étienne
Marcel
Pyramides
Concorde
Bonne
Nouvelle
Porte
de Pantin
Laumière
Jacques
Bonsergent
Strasbourg
Saint-Denis
Grands
Boulevards
Ourcq
Stalingrad*
Belleville
Château
d’Eau*
Quatre Septembre
Sentier
Bourse
Madeleine*
Champs
Élysées
Clemenceau
Gare
de l’Est
Bobigny
Pablo Picasso
Église de Pantin*
Jaurès*
Poissonnière*
Libération
Hôtel de Ville
de Bobigny
Pantin
Ella
Fitzgerald
Riquet
La Chapelle
Bondy
La Ferme
Crimée*
Magenta
Richelieu
Drouot*
Opéra*
Auber
Franklin
D. Roosevelt
Alma
Marceau*
Trocadéro
5
Les Coteaux
Havre
Caumartin*
Escadrille Normandie-Niémen
Pte de
Bobigny–Pantin
la Villette*
Raymond Queneau
Delphine
Corentin Cariou
Seyrig
Rosa
Parks
Dormoy*
L’ Abbaye
Gaston Roulaud
Canal
St-Denis
Château
Rouge
Le Peletier
Chaussée
d’Antin
La Fayette
Saint-Augustin
Miromesnil
Saint-Philippe
du-Roule
Kléber*
Victor Hugo
Marcadet
Poissonniers*
Freinville
Sevran
Drancy – Avenir
Pantin
Quatre Chemins
Porte
de la Chapelle
Mitry–Claye
Rougemont
Chanteloup
Maurice Lachâtre
Front
Populaire* Aubervilliers
Anvers
Cadet
Haussmann
Saint-Lazare
George V
Suresnes
Longchamp
Notre-Dame
de-Lorette*
Saint-Lazare*
Charles
de Gaulle
Étoile
Porte
Dauphine*
Trinité
d’Estienne
d’Orves
Danton
Fort
d’Aubervilliers
Gare du Nord
Saint-Georges
Aulnay
sous- Bois
Stade Géo André
Aubervilliers
Colette
Porte
Besson
Marx d’Aubervilliers
Barbès
Rochechouart
Pigalle*
Liège
Gare Saint-Lazare
Ternes
Argentine*
Avenue Foch
Europe
Courcelles
Porte Maillot
4
Villiers*
La Plaine
Stade de France
Simplon*
Funiculaire de
Montmartre
Abbesses
Place
de Clichy
Rome*
La Courneuve
Aubervilliers
1
d
@
Le Bourget
b
Blanche
Wagram
Pont de Neuilly*
Belvédère
Pereire
Pereire – Levallois
Grande Arche
Esplanade
de La Défense*
3
La Fourche
Porte de Champerret*
La Défense
Stade de France
Saint-Denis
Jules
Joffrin
Hôtel de Ville
de La Courneuve
La Courneuve
8 Mai 1945
Porte
de Clignancourt
Porte
de Saint-Ouen
Guy
Lamarck
Môquet*
Caulaincourt*
Porte de Clichy
Pont de Levallois
Bécon*
La Courneuve
6 Routes
Cosmonautes
( fin 2014)
Mairie de Saint-Ouen*
Garibaldi
Hôpital
Delafontaine
Cimetière
de St-Denis
Basilique
de St-Denis
Saint-Denis
Porte de Paris*
Carrefour
Pleyel
Mairie
de Clichy*
Charlebourg
Les Fauvelles
CDG Aéroport
Charles de Gaulle
Parc
des Expositions
Saint-Denis–Université
Marché de
St-Denis
Pierre
de Geyter
h
@
Saint-Ouen
Asnières
sur-Seine
Roger Sémat
Baudelaire
Saint-Denis
L’Île
Saint
Denis
Gabriel Péri
La Garenne
Colombes
2
La Noue
Les Agnettes
Comptoir-Club
Pont
de Bezons
Jacqueline
Auriol
H
G
Garges
Sarcelles
Creil
( fin 2014)
Delaunay-Belleville
P. Éluard Théâtre
Gérard Philipe
Mairie
de Villeneuve
la-Garenne
Chemin
des Reniers
Les Grésillons
Liaison urbaine
*
hUniversité
@
Guynemer
Les Courtilles
Pôle d’échange multimodal,
métro, RER, tramway
!"#$%##&##'()*+(,)*-+
'''*+(,)*-+
F
Villetaneuse
h
@
Asnières–Gennevilliers
Correspondances
1
E
D
Épinay
Orgemont
Pontoise
F
• Reality has not been simplified
Malesherbes
G
Melun
H
Propriété de la RATP - Agence Cartographique - PM1 01-2014 - CC - Design: bdcconseil - Reproduction interdite
A
Légende
7
8
• Poor simplicity (London linearity sequence)
• Tetralinear maps often have complex trajectories
• Good simplicity (London linearity sequence)
• Multilinear maps permit the simplest trajectories
• Psychology
• Complex trajectories hard to track
• Differential complexity will cause journey bias
• Complexity makes elements difficult to identify
• Measurement
• Easy for linear maps
• Number of changes of direction?
• Total angular transition?
Two changes
One change
90º transition
90º transition
• Measurement
• Harder to measure precisely for curvilinear maps
• Use tangent points, not cusp points
• Minimise control points (changes of direction)
• Avoid inflections (s-bends)
• Implications
• Objective usability: direct impact
on journey planning times
• Subjective ratings: for both attractiveness and
usability, simplest maps receive best ratings
• Caveats and Observations
• Almost certainly will conflict with the
topographicity criterion of the framework
• More angles = simpler line trajectories,
but the coherence criterion will suffer
Framework Elements: Coherence
• Definition
Elements of the map should relate to each
other to give overall design ‘good shape’
The result is orderly and organised
A collection of criteria, including
•
•
•
•
Easy-to identify shapes such as circles, horizons
Parallel lines
Symmetrical divergence
Aligned stations
Reality
Beck’s Design
Poor
Coherence
• Poor coherence (reality): Paris Metro (1975)
• Circle does not compensate for incoherent angles
• Poor coherence (London linearity sequence)
• Multilinear maps struggle for coherence
• Good coherence (London linearity sequence)
• Octolinear maps have natural coherence if designed well
• Psychology
• Makes relatedness of elements easier to identify
• Assists learning of underlying network structure
• Measurement
• Challenging, some individual contributors
to coherence can be measured
• Proportion of lines that are parallel
• Adherence to some sort of grid
• Symmetry
• Qualities of individual lines (simplicity) easy to
measure, higher-order relatedness is harder
• Prioritisation necessary for multi-criteria elements
• Implications
• Objective usability: might have impact on journey
planning times, should influence network learning
• Subjective ratings: not directly tested, but should
impact on both usability and attractiveness
• Important but very subtle
• The difference between a good and a great map?
• Multiple angles result in a struggle for
coherence because of non-parallel lines
• Curvilinear maps can look like a mass
of disorganised swirling tentacles
Framework Elements: Harmony
• Definition
A placeholder category for design aspects
likely to influence the aesthetic appeal of a
map but unlikely to affect usability directly
Examples of disharmonic elements include
•
Lines not crossing quite at
right-angles, non-perpendicular
•
Tall, thin, pointed triangles
Reality
Beck’s Design
Poor
Harmony
• Poor harmony
(reality):
Grenoble (2016)
• Purple route
stands out!
• Poor harmony (London linearity sequence)
• Decalinear maps are particularly disharmonic
• Good harmony (London linearity sequence)
• Hexalinear map with pleasing equilateral triangles
• Psychology
• Psychology of aesthetic judgement in its infancy,
but design acceptability is an important criterion
• Measurement
• Disharmonic elements can be identified, but
individual differences in appreciation mean that
scoring a design might be futile
• Implications
• Objective usability: no effect by definition
• Subjective ratings: not directly tested, but should
impact on attractiveness the more strongly
• Will always be individual differences in aesthetic
appreciation, every map will have its advocates
• Best to avoid design rules that are inherently
disharmonic unless an ideal fit to a network
• Coherence and harmony might be related
and difficult to disentangle in practice
Framework Elements: Balance
• Definition
Should equal station density across the map,
or else a smooth density gradient spreading
outwards from dense centre to sparse suburbs
There should be no avoidable sudden changes,
i.e. adjacent high/low density areas
Inverted density gradients (sparse centre,
compressed suburbs) are undesirable
Reality
Beck’s Design
Poor
Balance
• Poor balance (reality): London Underground (2016)
• Note the ‘South London sag’
• Poor balance (reality): London Underground (2016)
• Note the ‘South London sag’
• Poor balance (not London linearity sequence)
I2#62'/
Q'+10,("=5$*+-0$
Q'+10,(
!/#,62'/
I20,9#L700(
I2'910$+"K"
3'+-/#,
<00,"N',H
N-$$#,
M0,+2700(
M0,+2700("J-996
M0,+2"J',,07
J',,07" M0,+27-*H"
0$)+2#)J-99
N',H
?-*H/'$670,+2
Q#6+"?5-69-&
4%8,-(.# E*H#$2'/
J-99-$.(0$
?5-69-&" ?'L$#,6"
<'$0,
3'$#
?5-69-&
Q#6+"
J',,07
G562#L
I',&#$(#,6"N',H
F+'$/0,#
J#'(6+0$#"3'$#
I'$0$6"N',H
J',,07"K"
Q#'9(6+0$# N,#6+0$" W5##$685,L
V-$.685,L
?0'(
V#$+0$
J',9#6(#$
F5(85,L"
]07$
Q-99#6(#$"
=5$*+-0$
F5(85,L"
J-99
T-$*29#L"?0'(
W5##$[6"
N',H
F7-66"I0++'.#
V-985,$"
N',H
!9&#,+0$
U,##$10,(
V-985,$"J-.2"
?0'(
Q',7-*H"
!S#$5#
?0L'9"R'H
N'((-$.+0$
G,#$+"I,066
U06&#9"
J'/&6+#'(" R'H
J#'+2
J'/&6+#'(
T-$*29#L"
?0'("K"
T,0.$'9
G#96-^#"N',H
I2'9H"T',/
N',H"
?0L'9
J'$.#,"
3'$#
N'((-$.+0$
V#$+-62"
]07$"
Q#6+
!,*27'L
]5,$&-H#"3'$#
4&&#,"
J09907'L
F05+2"
J'/&6+#'(
F+>"=02$[6"Q00(
G'H#,"
F+,##+
G9'*H20,6#"
?0'(
J-.285,L"
K"E69-$.+0$
O'96+0$"
I'$0$85,L V-$.69'$(
I'9#(0$-'$"
?0'("K"
G',$685,L
J'*H$#L"
I#$+,'9
M0,+2"
!*+0$
X'6+"
!*+0$
J099'$("
N',H
Q2-+#"I-+L
F2#&2#,([6"G562
Q00("3'$#
X'9-$."
I0//0$
F05+2"
!*+0$
M0++-$." 3'$*'6+#,"
J-99"U'+# U'+#
X56+0$"
F\5',#
R9(" J0%+0$
F+,##+
G',8-*'$
T',,-$.(0$
W5##$67'L
]0++#$2'/"
I05,+"
?0'(
I2'$*#,L"
3'$#
<',89#"
!,*2
3#-*#6+#,"
F\5',#
3-S#,&009"
F+,##+
!9(.'+#"
X'6+
F+"N'59[6
F+#&$#L"
U,##$
<0$5/#$+
F2'(7#99 Q#6+1#,,L
]07#,"
J-99
<'$6-0$"J056#
J#'+2,07"
]#,/-$'96"
"D:"@:"_
J#'+2,07"
]#,/-$'9"A
I2-67-*H"
F05+2"X'9-$. N',H
M0,+21-#9(6
R6+#,9#L
G06+0$"<'$0,
J05$6907"X'6+
J05$6907"I#$+,'9
J05$6907"Q#6+
J'++0$"I,066
J'//#,6/-+2
]5,$2'/" F+'/10,(" ?'S#$6*05,+"
U,##$
G,00H
N',H
Q#6+"
F-9S#,+07$
Q#6+"
E$(-'"
W5'L
?0+2#,2-+2#
I'$',L"
Q2',1
U5$$#,685,L
F05+2"
V#$6-$.+0$
F90'$#"
F\5',#
N',60$6"U,##$
?-*2/0$(
N5+$#L"G,-(.#
P-*+0,-'
!"#$"#%&'$(#()*#$+,#"(-'.,'//'+-*"/'&"01"+2#"30$(0$"4$(#,.,05$("6207-$."
+2#"-/&0,+'$*#"01"'"8'9'$*#("(#6-.$:";"<'%7#99"=>"?08#,+6:"@ABC@B@CD@
F5,,#L"
W5'L6
G#,/0$(6#L
Q'+#,900
N-/9-*0
E/&#,-'9"Q2',1
X'6+"N5+$#L
F05+27',H
3'/8#+2"
M0,+2
G0,05.2
Elephant
& Castle
P'5%2'99
I9'&2'/"
=5$*+-0$
Q'$(670,+2"
?0'(
I9'&2'/"
J-.2"F+,##+
I9'&2'/"M0,+2
I9'&2'/"I0//0$
I9'&2'/"F05+2
G'92'/
]00+-$."G#*
]00+-$."G,0'(7'L
I099-#,6"Q00(
F05+2"Q-/89#(0$
<0,(#$
V#$$-$.+0$
RS'9
F+0*H7#99
G,-%+0$
M#7"
I,066
M#7"I,066"U'+#
J0$0,"R'H"N',H
G,0*H9#L
T0,#6+"J-99
FL(#$2'/
30$(0$"
G,-(.#
F5,,#L"I'$'9"?0'(
W5##$a6"?0'("N#*H2'/
F05+21-#9(6
Q-/89#(0$
E$+#,*2'$.#"
F+'+-0$6
I'$'('"Q'+#,
Q#6+/-$6+#,
Q-/89#(0$"N',H
THE L&ND&N UNDERGR&UND
E69'$("U',(#$6
F+>"='/#6[6"
N',H
Q#6+"G,0/&+0$
V#7"U',(#$6
I'$',L"Q2',1
J#,0$"W5'L6
N0$+00$"O0*H
30$(0$"I-+L"
!-,&0,+
<5(*25+#
T592'/"G,0'(7'L
J#'+2,07"
]#,/-$'9"
`
F+'+-0$
U905*#6+#,"
?0'("
M0,+2"
U,##$7-*2
I,0662',805,
X/8'$H/#$+
V$-.2+68,-(.#
X',9[6"
I05,+
I'$$-$."
]07$
G9'*H7'99
F05+2"W5'L
G',0$6"
I05,+
Q#6+"
V#$6-$.+0$
G#*H+0$
U'99-0$6"?#'*2
IL&,56
G#*H+0$"N',H
F+',"
?0L'9"!98#,+
3'$#
N,-$*#"?#.#$+
I56+0/"J056#
?0L'9"P-*+0,-'
Q'&&-$.
]#/&9#
JL(#"N',H"I0,$#,
!*+0$"
I#$+,'9
3'$.(0$"
N',H
Q#6+"
J'/
]07#,"
U'+#7'L
U,##$"N',H
!*+0$"
]07$
G',H-$.
!99"F'-$+6
X'6+"
N0&9', E$(-'
3-/#2056#
G9'*H1,-',6
J-.2"F+,##+"
V#$6-$.+0$
V#$6-$.+0$"
YR9L/&-'Z
G#*0$+,##
4&$#L
X'6+"J'/
4&+0$"N',H
N9'-6+07
O#S0$6"
?0'(
Q2-+#*2'&#9
!9(.'+#
G'$H
N-**'(-99L"
I-,*56
I2',-$."
I,066
Q00(.,'$.#"
N',H
O'.#$2'/"X'6+
O'.#$2'/"J#'+27'L
F+,'+10,("
J-.2"F+,##+
G07" G,0/9#L
?0'( )8L)G07
G#+2$'9"
U,##$
I'$$0$"F+,##+
I0S#$+"
U',(#$
F2#&2#,([6"
G562"<',H#+
U09(2'7H"
?0'(
<-9#"
X$(
<00,.'+# F20,#(-+*2
?566#99"
F\5',#
J0980,$
4&/-$6+#,
4&/-$6+#,"G,-(.#
J0,$*25,*2
X9/"N',H
Q'$6+#'("
N',H
3#L+0$
N5((-$."
<-99"
3'$#
G07"
I25,*2
?#.#$+[6"
N',H
R%10,("
I-,*56
3#L+0$6+0$#
!88#L"
?0'(
J'..#,6+0$
!$.#9
G0$("
F+,##+
J'*H$#L"
Q-*H F+,'+10,(
O'96+0$"
=5$*+-0$
G'L67'+#,
3'+-/#,"?0'(
J0/#,+0$
M#785,L"N',H
?#(8,-(.#
I'9#(0$-'$"?0'(
3'(8,0H#"U,0S#
M0,+2"
X'9-$.
Q#6+"
!*+0$
G',H-$.6-(#
U'$+6"
J-99
Q'$6+#'(
3#L+0$6+0$#"
J-.2"?0'(
Q'9+2'/6+07"
W5##$6"?0'(
F+,'+10,("
E$+#,$'+-0$'9
V-$.[6"I,066"
F+>"N'$*,'6
X56+0$
U,#'+"
N0,+9'$("
F+,##+
Q',,#$"
F+,##+
X(.7',#" <',L9#80$#
?0'(
F05+2"
]0++#$2'/
T-$685,L"N',H
<0,$-$.+0$"
I,#6*#$+
X(.7',#"
?0'(
J',,-$.'L"
U,##$"3'$#6
Q'9+2'/6+07" 3#L+0$"
I#$+,'9
<-(9'$("
?0'(
F#S#$" ]0++#$2'/"
F-6+#,6
J'9#
<'$0,"J056#
U00(.#"
F+,##+
X'9-$."
G,0'(7'L
I,05*2"
J-99
F$',#68,00H
!,6#$'9
I'/(#$"
?0'(
J'-$'59+
F05+2"Q00(10,(
J09907'L"?0'(
I'/(#$"
]07$
I2-.7#99
Q00(10,(
Q00("U,##$
]51$#99"N',H
V#$+-62"]07$
U,'$.#"
J-99
?0(-$."
P'99#L
T'-,90&
J-.2.'+#
U09(#,6"U,##$
X&&-$.
]2#L(0$"G0-6
O#8(#$
305.2+0$
G5*H25,6+"J-99
!,$06"U,0S#
G05$(6"U,##$
T-$*29#L"I#$+,'9
X'6+"T-$*29#L
N#,-S'9#
Q#6+805,$#"N',H
Q00(6-(#"N',H
Q#6+"
T-$*29#L
I09-$('9#
V#$6'9" G,0$(#685,L"
Q#6+"
?-6#
N',H
J'/&6+#'(
V#$6'9"
U,##$
<'-('"P'9#
<-99"J-99"X'6+
G5,$+"R'H
J#$(0$"I#$+,'9
F+0$#8,-(.#"N',H
M0,+209+
X(.7',#
Q#/89#L"N',H
M#'6(#$
O099-6"J-99
Q-99#6(#$"U,##$
G,0$(#685,L V-985,$
Q#/89#L"I#$+,'9
F05+2"?5-69-&
F05+2.'+#
J'+*2"X$(
M0,+2"Q#/89#L
F05+2"J',,07
R'H700(
]0++#,-(.#"K"Q2#+6+0$#
F05+2"V#$+0$
X'6+*0+#
?5-69-&"U',(#$6
I0*H106+#,6
J-.2"G',$#+
Q'+10,("J-.2"F+,##+
I,0%9#L
N#*H2'/"?L#
O#$/',H"
J-99
I,L6+'9"
N'9'*#
I5++L"F',H
U,##$7-*2
O#&+10,("G,-(.#
X9S#,60$"?0'(
3#7-62'/
V-$."U#0,.#"P
Q0097-*2"
!,6#$'9
N#$.#"Q#6+
!$#,9#L
M0,700("=5$*+-0$
Q#6+"I,0L(0$
G'H#,900"3-$#
=58-9##"3-$#
I#$+,'9"3-$#
<#+,0&09-+'$"3-$#
I-,*9#"3-$#
M0,+2#,$"3-$#
O-6+,-*+"3-$#
J'//#,6/-+2"
K"I-+L"3-$#
N-**'(-99L"3-$#
P-*+0,-'"3-$#
• Deliberately designed to be unbalanced
Q'+#,900"K"
I-+L"3-$#
O0*H9'$(6"
3-.2+"?'-97'L
30$(0$"
RS#,.,05$(
• Good balance (London linearity sequence)
• Flexibility of curvilinear permits bending into place
• Psychology
• Detail may be shunted to periphery of
vision where information is attenuated
• Has implications for visual attention/search
• Measurement
• Very easy to identify density
gradients and sudden changes
• Adverse regions of the map
can be flagged for redesign
• Implications
• Objective usability: might have implications for
visual search tasks such as station finding
• Subjective ratings: not directly tested, but could
impact on both usability and attractiveness
• Sometimes lack of balance will be unavoidable,
depends on network structure and components
• A light rail line with frequent stations might
interfere with the overall gradient
• Enlarged centre will improve legibility, but
over-enlarged centre will have an adverse effect
Framework Elements: Topographicity
• Definition
Station placement on the map should not
conflict with reality to the extent that
•
A conflict with users’ mental models of
a city results in distrust in the design
•
Users are misled into taking
inappropriate journeys
Preserving relative station position in dense
central areas is generally recommended
Reality
Beck’s Design
Poor
Topographicity
CJ:KDHB>C>HI:G>DH
$6:GDEJ:GIDI)
&$'%&%
• Poor topographicity
(reality): Madrid
Metro (2009)
• Line 4 in the northwest is particularly
misleading (brown)
• Poor topographicity (London linearity sequence)
• London incompatible with V-hexalinear
• Good topographicity (not London linearity seq)
• But at what cost for simplicity and coherence?
• Psychology
• London Underground distortions known to
influence mental models (Vertesi, 2008) and
journey choices (Guo, 2011)
• Measurement
• In theory, it is possible to compute a mean
deviation score for a map, but in practice:
• Variable scale: not all areas equally distorted
• Similar-sized distortions not all equally bad
• Distortion matters more for
areas of high station density
• Cardinal point distortion (N-S and E-W
reversal) is likely to matter the most
Absolute size of
deviation of yellow
in relation to blue is
identical
Yellow is relatively
near to blue, deviation
is more important
Yellow is relatively
far from blue,
deviation is less
important
Yellow is still north
and east of blue
Absolute size of
deviation of yellow
in relation to blue is
identical
Yellow is no longer
north of blue
• Implications
• Objective usability: more research needed into
effects on station finding and journey choice
• Subjective ratings: maps labelled ‘geographically
correct’ are not rated highly for usability
• Almost certainly will conflict with the
simplicity criterion of the framework
• Measurable utility of topographical accuracy
yet to be demonstrated (e.g., Forrest, 2012)
Framework Practicalities and Realities
• Choose design rules and
implement them to maximise:
• Simplicity: simple line trajectories
• Coherence: lines relate to give good shape
• Harmony: aesthetically pleasing elements
• Balance: evenly spread across the page
• Topographicity: geography distorted with care
• Every network is different, different design
rules might suit different networks
• The framework is neutral concerning design
rules, provided these criteria can be optimised
Framework Practicalities and Realities
• Framework gives guidance BUT
• Unable to specify precise design decisions
• Unable to resolve between conflicting criteria
• Further research needed to identify
• Precise utility of components and prioritisation
• Effects of components on objective usability
• Effects of components on subjective
ratings of usability and attractiveness
• Does not supersede individual prescriptions
derived from psychological theory (L5/6)
• A long way to go from framework to theory
• Framework is useful for weeding out bad maps
References (1)
•
Forrest, D. (2014). Causes and consequences of scale change in
schematic maps: are users aware and do they care? Schematic
Mapping Workshop 2014, University of Essex, April.
•
Guo, Z. (2011). Mind the Map! The Impact of Transit Maps on
Travel Decisions in Public Transit. Transportation Research Part A,
45, 625–639.
•
Nöllenburg, M. (2014). A survey on automated metro map layout
methods. Schematic Mapping Workshop 2014, University of Essex,
April.
•
Ovenden, M. (2008). Paris Metro Style in Map and Station Design.
Harrow Weald: Capital Transport Publishing.
•
Roberts, M. J. (2012). Underground Maps Unravelled: Explorations
in Information Design. Wivenhoe, Essex: Published by the author.
•
Roberts, M. J. (2014). What’s your theory of effective schematic map
design? Schematic Mapping Workshop 2014, University of Essex,
April.
References (2)
•
Roberts, M. J., Gray, H., & Lesnik, J. (2016). Preference versus
performance: Investigating the dissociation between objective
measures and subjective ratings of usability for schematic metro
maps and intuitive theories of design. Unpublished Manuscript.
•
Roberts, M.J., Newton, E.J., Lagattolla, F.D., Hughes, S., & Hasler,
M.C. (2013). Objective versus subjective measures of Paris Metro
map usability: Investigating traditional octolinear versus all-curves
schematic maps. International Journal of Human Computer Studies,
71, 363-386.
•
Vertesi, J., (2008). Mind the gap: the London underground map and
users’ representations of urban space. Social Studies of Science, 38,
7–33.
Copyright Notice
•
The text of and organisation of this presentation is copyright ©Maxwell J Roberts, 2016.
These slides may be distributed in unaltered form, but must not be reused or reformatted
for presentations or teaching, whatever the purpose, and they must not be rehosted for
downloading at any other web site, without the express permission of the copyright holder.
•
The following images are copyright ©Maxwell J Roberts, and may not be used or reused for
any purpose except for fair-use educational/illustrative purposes. They may not be used for
any commercial purpose (e.g., textbook, academic journal that charges a subscription)
without the express permission of the copyright holder.
•
Slides 17, 19-21 inclusive, 29 (insets), 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38,
41, 42, 44, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 57, 60, 61, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71
•
All other images in this presentation are reproduced for strictly illustrative/educational notfor profit purposes. If you are the originator or copyright holder of any of these images, and
wish for a credit to be appended to this presentation, please contact Maxwell J Roberts via
email at [email protected]
•
The web page from which this presentation was downloaded was www.tubemapcentral.com
•
All subjective evaluations expressed are the personal opinions of the author
•
This slide must not be deleted from this presentation

Lecture 8: Framework for Effective Design

Transcription

Documents pareils

diminuer / augmenter le retrait - Fédération Française Sports pour

International Pet trade fair

hotel acadia opera

Comment se rendre à l`EPFL depuis la gare de Lausanne Travel

Usability of Document Management Systems Considering Users

Porte Du Luxembourg Apartments Arlon Belgium

François Piron

microtechnologies for the beverage industry