# Comparing the Effects of Illustration Styles on the Functionality of Tourist Maps

Mikko Airikka, Masood Masoodian

► To cite this version:

Mikko Airikka, Masood Masoodian. Comparing the Effects of Illustration Styles on the Functionality of Tourist Maps. 19th IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT), Aug 2023, York, United Kingdom. pp.132-146, 10.1007/978-3-031-61698-3_13 . hal-05305333

HAL Id: hal-05305333

https://inria.hal.science/hal-05305333v1

Submitted on 9 Oct 2025

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

ifip

International Federation for Information Processing

This document is the original author manuscript of a paper submitted to an IFIP
conference proceedings or other IFIP publication by Springer Nature. As such, there
may be some differences in the official published version of the paper. Such
differences, if any, are usually due to reformatting during preparation for publication or
minor corrections made by the author(s) during final proofreading of the publication
manuscript.
# Comparing the Effects of Illustration Styles on the Functionality of Tourist Maps

Mikko Airikka and Masood Masoodian (✉) School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

mikko.airikka@alumni.aalto.fi, masood.masoodian@aalto.fi

**Abstract.** Tourist maps come in various forms, with some for instance aiming to help their users in finding their way in a foreign environment, some aiming to depict special characteristics of a certain place, and yet others trying to provide information about different tourist services, activities and experiences. Many tourist maps utilise illustrations to support users with these tasks. Despite their widespread use, however, currently there are no specific guidelines for the use of different types of illustrations for creating functional tourist maps. In this paper, we describe a user study which we have conducted to compare different illustration styles used in tourist maps. The study, which was in the form of an online survey, measured the time taken by the users to complete the map-based study tasks, the accuracy of users' responses, and their subjective difficulty ratings of the study tasks, as well as their preferences for differently illustrated maps. The results of the study suggest that different illustration styles do not affect the functionality of tourist maps significantly. However, in some cases, the illustration style used may have a notable effect on the map user's ability to acquire the necessary information. Furthermore, in terms of their style, some illustrations can be used to convey cultural and other types of information in tourist maps, which are not necessarily related to their primary functions.

**Keywords:** Illustrated tourist maps · tourist maps · map visualizations · visual design · map evaluation · cartography

## 1 Introduction

Tourist maps [8] have been around for at least two centuries, with their first widespread use starting in the 1830's through inclusion in travel guides for the Grand Tour of Europe [5]. This is also perhaps when the concept of “tourist” as a particular type of traveller – with a certain purpose and particular needs – begins to form. Since then, the concept has clearly evolved, with tourists these days travelling for all kinds of reasons, including for leisure, sightseeing, business, and so on [8]. As such, tourist maps often need to include a large amount of information in visual and textual form to cater for their diverse users with many different needs.

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2024

Published by Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024

A. Bramwell-Dicks et al. (Eds.): INTERACT 2023 Workshops, LNCS 14536, pp. 132–146, 2024.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61698-3_13
The design of functional tourist maps is, therefore, highly complex and requires making decisions regarding the information content of this type of maps, and their forms of generalization and symbolization [4]. The design of tourist maps also requires resolving various conflicts that exist in terms of their cartographic complexities [4], including for instance the need to design a discrete set of visual symbols that can be correctly interpreted by tourists from different language or cultural backgrounds [4]. To deal with this particular challenge, many tourist maps rely on the use of different forms of illustration to convey their information content to their users in a visual form – resulting in a type of maps widely known as *illustrated tourist maps*.

Despite their increasing use – both in digital and printed form – there are currently no guidelines or recommendations for the visual design of such *illustrated* tourist maps. In this paper, we describe a user study we have conducted to compare different illustration styles commonly used in tourist maps, with the aim of providing recommendations for their future designs.

## 2 Design of Tourist Maps

All cartographic maps try to visualize geospatial data [9] through graphic representations that are meant to help their users understand how different “things” in their real world spatially relate to one another [7]. The visual design of maps should, therefore, aim to support their users in “link[ing] places in the world to other kinds of things” [13], and convey information about those “things” in relation to specific geographical locations, and often at a particular point in time [10]. To achieve this, maps clearly need to generalize and simplify the “things” they represent, by distorting their representations of the real world, so as to provide just a sufficient level of accuracy [3] needed by their users to perform their map-based tasks. However, maps that represent “things” as close to reality as possible do tend to have a more functional design than those that do not represent the reality at all [10]. This is because more “realistic” maps are more likely to provide a better link between the real world and the “things” they represent.

The design of tourist maps should, in addition, provide better links between their users’ experiences and the geographical representations of the real world through visual depiction of the places they contain and the addition of more specific information related to those places [6]. By doing so, tourist maps can become invaluable tools for planning trips by helping travellers to identify interesting and significant places in locations they will be visiting [6].

However, as noted, designing functional tourist maps is rather complex due to their specific characteristics. For instance, tourist maps are used by people with different languages and levels of education, and they must contain a large amount of information to support a variety of tourist needs [4]. Tourist maps are also often designed to influence travellers’ behaviour so as to be beneficial to the local tourism industry, as well as helping travellers learn, for instance, about the local history and culture of their represented locations [6]. Tourist maps have a special role to play in marketing local businesses and their services – e.g., to
help the local restaurants, hotels and different tourist attractions – especially for tourists who are looking for a more personal and customized experience [11].

Many of these additional design objectives of tourist maps are addressed through the use of illustrations. Different forms of illustrations can be used in tourist maps to create visual representations of local identities, in an attempt to generate connections between travellers and the local populations and their culture. To that end, the design of illustrated tourist maps must bring together artistic expression and visual communication design elements, and operate at the intersection of art and design.

The design of tourist maps must also follow cartographic design principles, as proposed for the design of all such maps. Slocum et al. [12] provide a review of the cartographic design process, and argue that cartographic design is not merely about creating maps or defining their appearance, but more importantly it is about producing maps that can be used effortlessly by people to obtain their needed information. This information is provided to users through different cartographic elements [12] included in maps. Tourist maps, however, include not only these types of cartographic elements, but also a range of other illustrated visual elements [2].

Finally, it is important to note that the design of tourist maps must consider their specific production formats. Traditionally, tourist maps have been designed to be printed on paper, and are made available either as standalone maps, or included in travel guides, books, etc. Increasingly, more advanced targeted tourist maps are becoming popular, and being produced in for instance static, dynamic and interactive digital formats [11] – such as those provided, for example, by USE-IT<fnref n="1" />.

# 3 User Study

As mentioned earlier, there is a lack of available guidelines or recommendations for designing illustrated tourist maps to improve their functionality. To address this lack of guidelines based on empirical evidence, we conducted a user study to compare different illustration styles commonly used in tourist maps. In this section we describe this study, and present its findings.

## 3.1 Three Tourist Maps

The aim of this study was to compare three different versions of a tourist map, showing the same geographical area with identical layout and visual design. The only difference between the maps was in their use of illustrated elements, ranging from minimal to more detailed and decorative. The maps we used for this study were designed specifically for this purpose and included all the main elements found in illustrated tourist maps, as identified and categorised in our earlier survey [2]. While the full details of their designs are described elsewhere [1], here we provide a brief overview of the three tourist maps used in this study.

<footnote n="1">¹ https://www.use-it.travel/.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** The tourist Map 1 used in this study is a cartographic map with uniform geometrical icons.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** The tourist Map 2 used in this study is a cartographic map with varying geometrical icons and patterns.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** The tourist Map 3 used in this study is an illustrated map with detailed representational icons and patterns.</figcaption></figure>
The geographical area chosen as the basis for the three maps was the Suomen-
linna islands near Helsinki, Finland. The area is a very popular tourist site with
a considerable number of natural and built features. We used a combination of
information gathered from the Google Maps<fnref n="2" />, OpenStreetMap<fnref n="3" />, and the official
Suomenlinna visitor map as the sources for the information included in the base
map of the three tourist maps of this study. The three maps had the following
visual design specifications:

- Map 1: A cartographic map with uniform geometrical icons, shown in Fig. 1.

* With numerical and textual information only.

• Geographical areas represented using solid colors.

* Services represented as uniform geometrical shapes varying in color.

* No illustrated elements.

- Map 2: A cartographic map with varying geometrical icons and patterns, shown in Fig. 2.

* With numerical and textual information.

* Geographical areas represented using colors and additional, geometrical patterns.

• Services represented as different geometrical shapes varying in color.

* Illustrated trees.

- Map 3: An illustrated map with detailed representational icons and patterns, shown in Fig. 3.

* With numerical and textual information.

* Geographical areas represented using colors and additional, detailed patterns.

• Services represented as representational icons varying in shape and color.

* Illustrated attractions, buildings, geographic features, transportation, human and animal figures, etc.

3.2 Study Questions

This study was conducted as an online survey using the LimeSurvey<fnref n="4" /> tool. It consisted of three parts: 1) demographic questions, 2) questions related to map elements and wayfinding tasks, and 3) map preference questions. Table 1 provides a list of the questions used in the three parts of this user study.

Answering questions included in the second part of the survey – related to map elements (1–25) and wayfinding tasks (26–31) – required the use of one of the three maps described above. The maps were overlaid with a 24-cell grid (4 × 6), as shown in Fig. 4. The grid cells – labelled as A1–D6 – were used to enable referencing of the study questions to specific areas of the used maps when necessary.

<footnote n="2">² https://maps.app.goo.gl/oDnBysVycXSag2SM9.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/60.1465/24.9994.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ https://www.limesurvey.org/.</footnote>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** The list of questions used in the three parts of this user study.</caption><thead><tr><th>No.</th><th>Question</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td><strong>Demographics</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Q1</td><td>What is your age?</td></tr><tr><td>Q2</td><td>What is your gender?</td></tr><tr><td>Q3</td><td>What is your nationality?</td></tr><tr><td>Q4</td><td>What is your educational background?</td></tr><tr><td>Q5</td><td>Do you wear eyeglasses?</td></tr><tr><td>Q6</td><td>Do you suffer from color vision deficiencies?</td></tr><tr><td>Q7</td><td>Have you ever visited Suomenlinna?</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Questions related to map elements</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Q1</td><td>How many Museums and Libraries are located in the area C3?</td></tr><tr><td>Q2</td><td>How many places providing Art and Crafts services are located in the area C4?</td></tr><tr><td>Q3</td><td>Which area includes the largest number of Cafés?</td></tr><tr><td>Q4</td><td>Which area includes the largest number of restaurants?</td></tr><tr><td>Q5</td><td>Which area includes the largest number of Shops and Boutiques?</td></tr><tr><td>Q6</td><td>How many ponds are located in the area D3?</td></tr><tr><td>Q7</td><td>Select the area most suitable for swimming in the sea</td></tr><tr><td>Q8</td><td>Select the area most suitable for playing soccer or other outdoor games</td></tr><tr><td>Q9</td><td>Which areas include Sand Banks?</td></tr><tr><td>Q10</td><td>Which areas include Shore Rocks?</td></tr><tr><td>Q11</td><td>Which areas include Parks?</td></tr><tr><td>Q12</td><td>How many artilleries are located in the area C5?</td></tr><tr><td>Q13</td><td>In which area is HIAP located?</td></tr><tr><td>Q14</td><td>In which area is Valimo located?</td></tr><tr><td>Q15</td><td>In which area is Vaasan Kasarmi located?</td></tr><tr><td>Q16</td><td>Which areas include Tunnels?</td></tr><tr><td>Q17</td><td>Which areas include Bridges?</td></tr><tr><td>Q18</td><td>Which areas include Fortress Buildings?</td></tr><tr><td>Q19</td><td>From which areas can you take a ferry or water bus?</td></tr><tr><td>Q20</td><td>Which area is Suomenlinna Church located in?</td></tr><tr><td>Q21</td><td>Which area is King's Gate located in?</td></tr><tr><td>Q22</td><td>Which area is Submarine Vesikko located in?</td></tr><tr><td>Q23</td><td>Which area is most suitable for seeing the cruise ships pass by?</td></tr><tr><td>Q24</td><td>Which area is most suitable for seeing sailboats being renovated?</td></tr><tr><td>Q25</td><td>Which area is most suitable for seeing private boats in the dock?</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Questions related to wayfinding tasks</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Q26</td><td>Imagine you are heading to Piper's Park from the Guest Marina. When walking towards the Artillery Bay Quay, which direction should you turn to when you reach the bridge?</td></tr><tr><td>Q27</td><td>Imagine you are heading to Submarine Vesikko from the King's Gate. When walking the Main Route towards the Piper's park, which direction should you turn to at the Suomenlinna Beach?</td></tr><tr><td>Q28</td><td>Imagine you are heading to Vaasan Kasarmi from the Jetty Barracks via the Main Route. How many crossings should you pass before exiting the Main Route?</td></tr><tr><td>Q29</td><td>Through which wayfinding point does the shortest route from Pikku-Mustasaari to 1918 Prisoner-Of-War Camp Memorial pass?</td></tr><tr><td>Q30</td><td>Through which wayfinding points does the shortest route from Café Silo to Café Piper pass?</td></tr><tr><td>Q31</td><td>Through which wayfinding point does the shortest route from Suomenlinna Beach to the King's Gate pass?</td></tr><tr><td></td><td><strong>Map preference questions</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Q1</td><td>Which map version do you think would have been the most useful when answering the questions so far?</td></tr><tr><td>Q2</td><td>Which map version would you choose to take with you if you wanted to visit Suomenlinna?</td></tr><tr><td>Q3</td><td>Which map version would you recommend for someone visiting Suomenlinna for the first time?</td></tr><tr><td>Q4</td><td>Which map version do you find most pleasing aesthetically?</td></tr><tr><td>Q5</td><td>Which map version do you find most useful for finding directions from?</td></tr><tr><td>Q6</td><td>Which map version do you find most useful for spotting attractions and services?</td></tr><tr><td>Q7</td><td>Which map version do you find most useful for getting familiar with the nature of Suomenlinna?</td></tr><tr><td>Q8</td><td>Which map version do you think provides the most accurate image of Suomenlinna?</td></tr><tr><td>Q9</td><td>Which map version do you think provides the most positive image of Suomenlinna?</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>A1</td><td>B1</td><td>C1</td><td>D1</td></tr><tr><td>A2</td><td>B2</td><td>C2</td><td>D2</td></tr><tr><td>A3</td><td>B3</td><td>C3</td><td>D3</td></tr><tr><td>A4</td><td>B4</td><td>C4</td><td>D4</td></tr><tr><td>A5</td><td>B5</td><td>C5</td><td>D5</td></tr><tr><td>A6</td><td>B6</td><td>C6</td><td>D6</td></tr></table>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 4. The 24-cell grid used in this study, as overlaid on one of the three maps.</figcaption></figure>

## 3.3 Study Participants

Participants were recruited for this study using a convenience sampling method, and mainly through personal contacts. A total of 33 participants took part in the study. The participants were randomly divided into three groups of equal size (N = 11), with each group answering questions in the second part of the survey using one of the three map versions.

Most of the study participants (N = 21) were between 26–35 years old, with 3 others being between 18–25, 7 being between 36–45, and 2 being between 46–55 years old. Slightly more than half the participants (N = 18) were male and the others (N = 15) were female. All the participants were Finnish, with almost all of them (N = 31) having a university level education. Almost half the participants (N = 16) had corrected vision, and only one of them had colour deficiency. All the participants had previously visited the geographical area (Suomenlinna) shown in the three maps, with half of them (N = 16) having visited it more than 10 times, 11 having visited between 4–10 times, 3 between 2–3 times and 1 only once.

## 3.4 Study Results

The analyses of our study data produced a number of interesting results. In this section we discuss these results in terms of: 1) the accuracy of the answers given to the questions in the second part of the study survey using each of the three
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. The number (N = 11) of correct answers given to each of the study questions related to map elements (1–25) and wayfinding tasks (26–31).</figcaption></figure>

maps, 2) the time taken to answer each of those questions using the three maps, 3) the difficulty ratings given by the participants to answering each of those questions using the three maps, and 4) the participants’ preferences for each of the three maps in terms of the questions asked in the third part of this study survey.

## Accuracy of Answers

We analysed the number of correct answers given to the questions related to map elements (1–25) and wayfinding tasks (26–31) in the second part of the study survey. Figure 5 provides a summary graph of the study results. As can be seen from this graph, most of the questions were correctly answered using either of the three maps. This is due to the fact that all three maps had the same underlying cartographic design, which aimed to provide all the necessary functionality required for the study tasks. A few of the questions, however, were not correctly answered for various possible reasons.

The lower number of correct answers given to Q1 could partly be due to the large number of different visual elements located in its target area of C3, making it difficult for the participants to locate and identify particular elements on that part of the map. In addition, the reason for the lower number of correct answers given to Q1 for Map 2 could partly be explained by the fact that this version contains potentially more distracting visual elements than Map 1, and less visually clear elements than Map 3.

The lower number of correct answers given to Q21 might be due to the fact that there are two separate elements containing the text “King’s Gate” close to each other on the map. Furthermore, these elements are located in the adjacent areas of the grid, which might have confused the study participants in locating the “King’s Gate”. Also, once again, the reason for the lower number of correct answers given to Q21 for Map 2 could be because this version contains potentially more distracting visual elements than Map 1. In addition, Map 3 includes an illustration element highlighting the “King’s Gate”, and making it easier to find compared to finding it in Map 2.

The lower number of correct answers given to Q28, on the other hand, is probably due to some of the study participants finding the question confusing. On the route targeted in this question, there are two crossings where the road leads in three directions, instead of four. It is possible that some participants
have not taken this kind of branching of road into consideration when counting the number of crossings before exiting the “Main Route”. Another factor that might have caused confusion when counting the number of crossings is due to the complexity of the very first crossing on this route. It is possible that not all the participants have managed to interpret correctly whether the very first crossing consists of one or two separate crossings.

Finally, the lower number of correct answers give to Q31 might be because a building located on the map partly obscures one of the roads through which one of the routes to “King’s Gate” passes. This might have confused the study participants when estimating the length of the different routes. In addition, the actual differences in the length of the different routes are relatively small, which might have made it difficult for the participants to answer this question correctly.

## Time Taken to Answer

We carried out ANOVA single factor test with Tukey's HSB Post Hoc Test to analyse the differences in the time taken to answer each of the questions given in the second part of the study survey using each of the three different maps. The questions in this part of the study were related to map elements (1–25) and wayfinding tasks (26–31). A graph providing the summary of this analysis is provided in Fig. 6. Statistically significant differences were observed for only two of the questions across the three maps. These were Q10 and Q21.

Our analysis for Q10 showed significant differences – *F*(2,30) = 3.47, *p* = 0.044 – between the three maps in the time taken by the participants to answer this question using them. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the average answer time for Map 1 – *Mean* = 52.53, *SD* = 16.83 – was significantly higher than the average for Map 2 – *Mean* = 35.03, *SD* = 7.696. There was, however, no significant differences between the average answer time for Map 3 – *Mean* = 51.87, *SD* = 24.32 – and the other two maps.

The study participants using Map 1 not only took longer to answer Q10, but they also answered this question incorrectly more often than the participants using either Map 2 or Map 3. In addition, the participants using Map 1 found Q10 more difficult to answer than the participants using the other two maps – as will be discussed later. The longer average answer time and the lower number of correct answers for Map 1 is due to the inclusion of less visual details in this

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** Time taken (in seconds) to answer each of the study questions related to map elements (1–25) and wayfinding tasks (26–31).</figcaption></figure>
map, details which could have been helpful when identifying and locating the “Shore Rocks” feature. Unlike the other two maps, Map 1 did not include any visual patterns representing different types of land areas. Instead, identifying and locating such features on Map 1 relied solely on the colour of the element representing these features.

In terms of Q21, the answer times were significantly different between the three maps – *F*(2, 30) = 4.51, *p* = 0.019. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the average answer time for Map 2 – *Mean* = 12.46, *SD* = 6.10 – was significantly less than the average for Map 3 – *Mean* = 24.51, *SD* = 14.21. There was, however, no significant differences between the average answer time for Map 1 – *Mean* = 15.19, *SD* = 7.28 – and the other two maps.

One might argue that the lower average answer time for Q21 using Map 2 could be because there are overall notably fewer visual elements on Map 2 than on Map 3, which might have generally made it easier for the study participant to find the individual elements on Map 2 – in this case the “King’s Gate” icon or label. However, while there are even fewer visual elements on Map 1, the average answer time for this map is higher than that of Map 2. Therefore, the amount of visual elements on a map on its own does not explain the differences in the time taken to answer the study questions using that map. Another reason for the quicker answer time for Map 2 compared to Map 1 could be related to the style of Map 2 icons, which are more detailed and distinguishable.

However, it is important to note that even though the study participants answered Q21 faster using Map 2 than Map 3, they gave more incorrect answers to this question using Map 2. As discussed earlier, the reason for this might be that on Map 2 the two closely located visual elements containing the text “King’s Gate” may have not been correctly identified.

## Difficulty Ratings

We also carried out ANOVA single factor test with Tukey's HSB Post Hoc Test to analyse the ratings given by the study participants using a 7-point Likert scale (1:Difficult – 7:Easy) for the difficulty of answering each of the questions in the second part of the study survey using each of the three different maps. The questions in this part of the study were related to map elements (1–25) and wayfinding tasks (26–31). A graph providing the summary of this analysis is provided in Fig. 7. Statistically significant differences were observed for only Q2 and Q24 across the three maps, with differences for Q22 being almost significant.

The differences in the difficulty ratings given for Q2 by the participants using the three maps were statistically significant – *F*(2, 30) = 3.84, *p* = 0.032. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the average difficulty rating given for this question for Map 1 – *Mean* = 2.45, *SD* = 1.44 – was significantly higher than the average given for it for Map 2 – *Mean* = 1.27, *SD* = 0.47. However, the average difficulty rating for this question for Map 3 – *Mean* = 1.64, *SD* = 0.92 – did not significantly differ from those of the other two maps.
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Difficulty ratings (1:Difficult – 7:Easy) given to each of the study questions related to map elements (1–25) and wayfinding tasks (26–31).</figcaption></figure>

While the study participants using Map 1 answered Q2 correctly as often as those using Map 2 – and slightly more than those using Map 3 – it took them longer to answer this question than those using the other two maps. The higher difficulty rating given for Q2 might be related to the style of the icon representing the “Arts and Crafts” services in Map 1, which was less detailed than those in maps 2 and 3.

In terms of Q24, the differences in the difficulty ratings given by the participants using the three maps were statistically significant – *F*(2, 30) = 4.95, *p* = 0.014. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the average difficulty rating for Map 1 – *Mean* = 4.45, *SD* = 1.86 – was significantly higher than the average for Map 2 – *Mean* = 2.82, *SD* = 1.25 – and Map 3 – *Mean* = 2.64, *SD* = 1.29. The higher difficulty rating given by the participants using Map 1 could be related to the style of the icon representing the “Historical Sights” – which the “Shipyard” is categorised as – in this map, when compared to those used in Map 2 and Map 3. The less detailed style of the icons used in Map 1 seems to have made them more difficult for its users to identify and locate the elements representing “Historical Sights”.

Finally, for Q22 the differences in the difficulty ratings given by the participants using the three maps were almost statistically significant – *FF*(2, 30) = 3.296, *p* = 0.051. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the average difficulty rating given for this question by the participants using Map 1 – *Mean* = 3.18, *SD* = 2.04 – was almost significantly higher than the average given for Map 2 – *Mean* = 1.82, *SD* = 0.60. The average difficulty rating given for Map 3 – *Mean* = 1.91, *SD* = 1.11 – did not significantly differ from the averages of the other two maps. While the participants using Map 1 answered Q22 correctly as often as the participants using the other two maps, those using Map 1 took longer to answer this question than those using the other two maps. The higher average difficulty rating given and the longer answer time by the users of Map 1 suggest that the less detailed style of the icon representing “Museums and Libraries” service category – which the “Submarine Vesikko” belongs to – made it difficult to identify.

## Map Preferences

As mentioned earlier, in the third part of the study survey we asked the participants to indicate their preferences for each of the three maps in terms of the nine questions asked in this part. Figure 8 provides a graph summary of the results
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8.** The number of study participants (N = 33) preferring each of the three maps in terms of the map preference questions of the study.</figcaption></figure>

of the analysis of our study participants’ preferences. As can be seen from this graph, Map 3 was by far the most preferred map for all the questions asked in this part of the study.

One of the reasons for the participants’ preference for Map 3 might be because it seems to appear more accurate and informative than the other two maps due to the amount of details and different illustrated visual elements that Map 3 has. However, even though Map 3 contains a larger number of visual elements than the other two maps, many of them were not actually used for answering the survey questions.

Despite the participants’ preference for Map 3, some of its visual elements may have made the wayfinding tasks (26–31) of the study survey more difficult and less accurate to complete. In some case the illustrated elements of Map 3 in fact obscured its other elements, and possibly made it more difficult for the participants to, for instance, select the correct routes from one place to another.

The more detailed illustrated style of Map 3 may have also made it look more polished and completed than the other two maps, while its representational style of the icons may have helped the participants to identify added information useful for completing some of the survey questions – such as those relating to different services and attractions.

Finally, it is important to note that although Map 3 was the most preferred amongst the three maps, as the results of the survey indicate a considerable number of the participants preferred the more stripped-down style of Map 2 over Map 3. This shows that adding further illustrative details may not always be considered as useful by some users of such tourist maps.

# 4 Conclusions

In this paper, we have presented a user study aimed at evaluating different illustration styles used in tourist maps. The study has compared the time taken by the participants to complete questions related to various map-based tasks, as well as the accuracy of their responses, and their subjective ratings of the difficulty of answering those questions. The results of the study suggest that while there were not many statistically significant differences between the three maps compared in this study in terms of these measures, the participants largely
preferred the more illustrated map – Map 3 – over the other two maps – Map 1 and Map 2.

In general, illustrated elements do not seem to negatively impact the functionality of tourist maps. In some cases, however, such elements positively improve users' perception of tourist maps, particularly when aiming to convey information about a place – e.g., a city – in terms of its brand, identity, visual image, reputation, and so on. As anticipated, illustrated elements also seemed to make the map more appealing.

Despite these results, it should be noted that if illustrations are not professionally designed and implemented, the may have a negative impact on the map information hierarchy. Badly executed, and overly used, illustrations may also obscure some vital elements of an illustrated map, thus making it less usable.

## References

1. Airikka, M.: Designing better tourist maps: how can illustration be used to improve the functionality of a tourist map? Masther's thesis, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, May 2020. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/44900

2. Airikka, M., Masoodian, M.: A survey of the visual design of cartographic and other elements of illustrated tourist maps. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference in Information Visualization – Part II, pp. 7–13. IV 2019, IEEE (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/IV-2.2019.00011

3. Barber, P. (ed.): The Map Book. Walker Books, London (2005)

4. Filippakopoulou, V., Nakos, B.: Is GIS technology the present solution for creating tourist maps? Cartogr. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Geovisualization **32**(1), 51–62 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3138/F804-84H7-7P48-3750

5. Garfield, S.: On the Map: A Mind-expanding Exploration of the Way the World Looks. Gotham Books, Sheridan (2013)

6. Hanna, S.P., Del Casino, V.J.: Mapping Tourism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis (2003)

7. Harley, J.B., Woodward, D. (eds.): The History of Cartography: Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient and Medieval Europe and The Mediterranean, vol. 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1987)

8. Jancewicz, K., Borowicz, D.: Tourist maps - definition, types and contents. Pol. Cartogr. Rev. **49**(1), 27–41 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1515/pcr-2017-0003

9. Kraak, M.J., Ormeling, F.: Cartography: Visualization of Spatial Data, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New York (2011)

10. MacEachren, A.M.: How Maps Work: Representation, Visualization, and Design. Guilford Press, New York (2004)

11. Sawyer, C.: Web cartography for world heritage cities: a survey and evaluation. In: Peterson, M.P. (eds.) International Perspectives on Maps and the Internet, pp. 341–356. LNGC. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72029-4_22

12. Slocum, T.A., McMaster, R.B., Kessler, F., Howard, H.H.: Thematic Cartography and Eovisualization, 3rd edn. Pearson, London (2013)

13. Wood, D., Fels, J., Krygier, J.: Rethinking the Power of Maps. Guilford Press, New York (2010)