VISUAL PERCEPTION OF SIGNS OF TOURIST MAPS

signs. Signs created using abstract geometric figures. Geometric signs. Signs created using geometric elements and in their form slightly resembling the denoted object. Textual signs. Signs based on textual symbols. Signs-symbols. Such signs in most cases are metaphor of the denoted object, i.e., the drawing does not resemble the denoted object. Signs-drawings (pastiche signs). This group includes the signs, which fairly resemble the denoted object. Mimetic signs. Photos are frequently used on tourist-advertising maps. For example a front-page photo, threedimensional drawing, etc., may be used instead of conventional sign to denote a hotel. The perception of photo realistic sign is specific. Besides, its recognition depends on whether the respondent knows the object. For this reason this type of signs was not used in the present research. The signs of the last three types are also called pictograms. The classification of signs is given in Fig. 3. Fig. 3. Classification of signs used in tourist maps The tourist maps are distinguished among other thematic maps in that the pragmatic aspect of their quality is more highly appreciated by the users. The convenience of signs (for reading and understanding) is one of the main criteria of evaluation of a map by the user. Moreover, the tourist maps are used by various groups, with set different demands for maps and in different ways evaluate the quality of and the same map. As regards the icons in the general tourist maps it is especially important for the user to: Recognize the new without using the legend; Memorize the recognized signs; Quickly recognize the interesting places or router according to the sign groups; The signs must not impede the reading of the general information of the map and vice versa. THE MAIN PRINCIPLES OF PERCEPTION OF CARTOGRAPHIS SIGNS The signs are carriers of information. Yet, the perception of the information by the user depends not only on the form of presentation of the sign but on many other factors as well. The process of the rise of information presented in a map (communication process) may be described in the following way: a phenomenon is mapped, the data about it collected and interpreted by a cartographer (compiler), the product – map – is compiled, and the presented information is interpreted by the user (Sluter, 2001). This process has been applied in tourist maps. Fig. 4. shows the communication process of tourist maps. All stages of communication process are affected by hindering factors, which many by denoted as interferences or noise. Under the effect of these factors the information is distorted in incorrectly perceived. The inaccuracies and errors, which appeared while collecting the information about the mapped phenomenon, are pointed out at the first stage of communication ‘tourism’ and ‘data about tourist information’. The cartographer’s errors while interpreting the data appear as noise at the second stage of communication ‘data about tourist information’ and ‘interpretation of the data by cartographer’. Cartographer’s errors made in the visualization of the information are shown as noise at the third stage of communication ‘cartographer’s data interpretation’ and ‘tourist map’. The user’s errors in perception of the presented information represent the noise at the fourth stage of communication ‘tourist map’ and ‘user’s data interpretation’. The interferences at the third and fourth stage of the process of communication were in the focus of the present research (Fig. 4). Fig. 4. ‘Noise’ in communication process (after Sluter, 2001) Two main tasks must be fulfilled in order to find out the processes and mechanism of perception of a map. Development of methods for different levels of investigated processes – perception of discrete signs, perceptions of the groups of sing, general perception of cartographic image; Evaluation of investigation results. The investigations of visual perception of discrete signs must be based on a wide scope of experiments related with cartographic and psychological research. These experiments include: efficiency of graphic means, e.g., perception of geometric figures differing in their form; evaluation of the choice of cartographic signs and print type; differences of colors spectrum; perception of signs in groups, etc. The investigation may be carried in two ways: 1. Investigation of the perception of a group of isolated signs (not on a map, without taking into consideration the spatial relations between objects); 2. Analysis of readability and perception (recognition) of discrete signs on a real map with regard to color tones, superposition, and linear and areal marks (Vostokova et al., 2002). The uttered and written words are simply perceived. We perceive the meaning of word without taking into account the real sound or physical expression of words. The perception of signs in based on something else. The signs are ‘not clear’. We pay attention to their appearance, distribution, and classification. When we are reading or someone is talking to, communiqués are arranged in a consecutive order. Thus we are programmed to receive the flow of ideas in a certain defined order. It is the other way round with the visual information. From images one gets an optic impression synoptically (all at once) but not consecutively. The perception of each sign of a map depends on its position and appearance, i.e., it is related with all other signs on this map. On a map the information cannot be systematized consecutively as it is a speech written text. A map must be apprehended as a whole. When we see a sight we perceive it. When we hear words or sounds we automatically try understanding them. We do this unconsciously with signs. As people tend to reject the visual monotonousness and unclearness the graphic images are systematized in such a way that they have visual meaning. Every sign is given such visual attributes as size, shape or color. The graphic signs are perceived structurally. Some signs seem to be more important than others, some forms stand out, some colors dominate, etc. When these visual interrelations are perceived in the same way by compiler and user the communication is effective. If not, the map model is a failure. According to established rules the signs-drawings bear the greatest resemblance with the denoted object (Dumbliauskienė, 2002) and they are called motivated signs. It is a common view that the signs-drawings are perceived and memorized best, whereas the geometric signs – worst. Thus, we may state that the perception of signs increases linearly form geometric signs to drawings (hypothesis 1) (Fig. 9 hypothesis 1). The geometric signs are perceived worst. They are followed by sign groups according to complexity of visual constituents. Signs-drawings, photo advertising signs, signs 3D, etc. find themselves at the end of this scale. The term ‘degree of associativity’ is applied by the author to define the resemblance of the sing with the denoted object. The ‘degree of associativity’ shows the link of the sign, with the denoted object according to the form and color. The term ‘informativeness’ is applied for evaluation of the signs of tourist maps. The ‘informativeness’ of the sign is defined by the scope of attributive meanings of the object the information about witch is conveyed through the sign. The evaluation of informativeness of a sign often is subjective in its nature. No unified system of methods exists for evaluation of informativeness in cartography. In our case the potential informativeness of the categories of signs is evaluated by comparison with the degree of ‘assiociativity’. Fig. 5. Asociativity and potential information load of icon signs As some signs are more remote form the real meaning of denoted objects and others reflect the object rather realistically it would be natural to assume that degree of perception increases with the sign approaching the real form of the denoted phenomenon object (Fig. 9, hypothesis 2). Yet, the analysis of the dependence of informativeness on associativity shows that the degree of perception falls down when the degree of associativity becomes to the high (Fig. 9, hypothesis 2). The over-associativity of the sings manifests through very sophisticated and polysemantic visualization of the object (phenomena and information load (the number of the conveyed abstract information). The following hypothesis (hypothesis 2) of perception of signs is promoted: The signs perception is functionally related with the degree of associativeness of the sign and linearly increases to a certain point. There occurs a ‘break’ in the scale of perception when the associativeness of the sign becomes too high. From the break point the perceptiveness of the sign begins to gradually decrease. The present investigation of perception of tourist cartographic production was designed as a check if the mentioned hypothesis. The necessity of such investigations is pointed out by American scientist, cartographer R. Sluter: ‘for comprehensive conveyance of cartographic material it is very important to know the needs of map users (Sluter, 2001). INVESTIGATION OF PERCEPTION OF SIGNS USED ON TOURIST MAPS The number of respondents for the investigation was determined on the ground of literary sources (Kardelis, Sapagovas, 1998, Kardelis, 2002). Fifty respondents were chosen for the inquest. The group of respondents was formed by the simple method of random choice. The necessary number of respondents was randomly selected form the population list, provided that the features of the selected groups of respondents reflect the features of the whole population (Kardelis, 2002). As the chosen population included the working people the group was proportionally composed of 24 men and 26 women (The proportion of men and women in the population of Lithuania is 1000 to 1121. The Yearbook of Lithuanian statistics, 2000). The inquest was carried out using questionnaires. They included fiv