## 5 Discussion
### Impact of Navigation Aid: Cognitive Load and Wayfinding Strategy
#### 5.2.1 No Effect on Performance and Workload  
It was assumed that MazeMap should have provided better results as it provides seamless outdoor to indoor navigation, which is required in university campus wayfinding. Surprisingly this was not the case. According to the results from the conducted experiment, no significant differences were found between the two aids in workload and wayfinding performance. There were no differences in NASA TLX score, SWR score, frequency of wrong directions and total task completion. Although the findings showed differences in mean task duration, frequency of help, and hesitation, which was higher for outdoor navigation app. However, these differences were also not significant. Many researchers have focused on the use of different navigation aids for wayfinding and have found similar results. [PERSON] et al. [48] found no radical difference in the effectiveness and efficiency of wayfinding time, errors, and interaction with tools between AR users and 2D electronic map users. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [54] compared voice-assisted digital maps with paper maps and found that regardless of the navigation aid used, the cognitive workload and search efficiency of environmental information are quite similar, and no significant difference was found in landmark knowledge acquisition and distance and time estimation. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [6] also found that digital navigation aids (wearable devices and smartphones) were not significantly different in performance and workload. However, the wearable device was perceived to be more accurate. According to the results of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [18], there were no significant differences between the two wayfinding aids (printed map, and digital map) in how efficiently they found destinations. However, these non-significant results may have several causes. First the small sample size (N = 22) could be one of the reasons as statistically significant findings are harder to detect with small sample sizes. The other possible reasons are presented in the next section. 5.2.2 Previous Experience, Usability, and Technical Issues: Cognitive Load and Multimodal Navigation  
The quantitative data from the demographic questionnaire showed that all the participants had frequently used Google Maps, whereas most of the participants had rarely used MazeMap before. This difference in _previous experience_ led to a difference in familiarity with apps between the groups, which could have affected the cognitive load and, thus, wayfinding performance. According to [PERSON] et al. [15], novelty could be one reason for the ineffectiveness of GPS-based navigation systems. Therefore, it is interesting to see if the wayfinding performance improves after multiple uses. Another research by [PERSON] [55] reported that the accumulated experience of navigation tool use affects wayfinding and spatial orientation. The participants using MazeMap also faced more _usage/usability issues_ (floor understanding, room search, and overall experience as highlighted by the qualitative data) which added to the cognitive load and, in turn, increased the workload for this group. As highlighted by [PERSON] [56], usability issues increase the user's cognitive load, thus increasing the cognitive resources required for the primary task. According to [PERSON] [57], NASA TLX determines the cognitive load of the user in performing a task. Therefore, the results could be different if participants had more experience and fewer usability issues. However, Google Maps does not provide indoor navigation, so participants in this group were on their own when inside the building; this could offset the ease of using Google Maps compared with the ease of using MazeMap. Third, the qualitative analysis from the interview revealed that participants using MazeMap faced more _technical issues_ related to internet and GPS/IPS connectivity which also affected live or current location inside the building and could have affected the workload. Regardless the experiment group performed better although not significant.