| Abstract: | Graphic designers and an experimental psychologist worked together to improve the design of two map symbols which are frequently confused: the symbols for cuttings and embankments on topographic maps. The problem was analysed in terms of the function of the symbols and their likely cognitive representations. Tests were developed to evaluate alternative designs, including an intervisibility task which requirred users to visualize the landform from the symbols viewed in the context of a map. Tests were given to schoolchildren and to experienced map users in order to compare the standard symbols with five alternative designs. Children's performance was strongly affected by the symbols they used, but experienced users were much less affected. After some refinement of the symbols a further experiment demonstrated the superiority of a number of alternative designs over the existing symbols on a range of test: scores were almost double on the intervisibility task. The paper makes recommendations to cartographers and argues for greater consideration of the inexperienced map user in the design process. |
