# Methodology for Conceptual Navigational 3D Chart Assessment Based on Eye Tracking Measures
## 4 Discussion
Taking into account the above consideration, Figure 20 presents a chart analysing Level 4, the symbol identification for each test scenario. Analysing this data, it is clearly visible that the symbol identification times are shorter for 3D maps compared to 2D maps. However, a detailed analysis of the chart reveals scenarios where the identification time is shorter for 2D maps than for 3D maps (e.g., scenarios 14 and 17). Additionally, by examining the chart, one can estimate the differences in identification times for individual test scenarios. This demonstrates that the method of analysing the effectiveness of conceptual maps presented in this article can also follow a \"general-to-specific\" methodology. The universal indicator can play an important role in the design process, acting as a practical tool to support design decisions. It makes it possible to assess the quality of different map concepts, which avoids interpretive ambiguities in the aspect of assessing map effectiveness. Above all, it is based on concrete numerical data. As a result, in the design process, it is possible to compare different variants of solutions and make a preliminary selection of those that show the greatest development potential. Given the  
Figure 19: Proposed methodology of navigational effectiveness assessment. Figure 20: Graph showing map symbols identification times for each test scenario. large number of standardised map objects [70; 71], testing the cartographic content with conceptual 3D symbols at a basic level will allow the process of creating new map products to be more efficient. In addition, its simplicity and transparency mean that it can also be understood by team members without specialised knowledge, which facilitates joint project decisions. The quantitative nature of the indicator also allows automation of the analysis, which is particularly valuable for large projects or testing multiple scenarios simultaneously. While the indicator is not a substitute for in-depth qualitative analysis, it provides a solid starting point for further research. Thus, it serves both a diagnostic and supportive function in the process of creating more optimised and functional map products. The versatility of the indicators should be understood primarily at the basic design level as an element supporting the decision-making process. At this stage, its construction can be regarded as a pioneering approach since it is difficult to completely ignore the qualitative dimension of assessing the effectiveness of maps. Despite the simplification inherent in the universal indicator, its structure makes it possible to refer to more detailed analyses at any time. In this context, our proposal is to use the methodology with all the elaborated indicators discussed in the paper: the map readability indicator, the correct identification indicator, and the time identification indicator. Thanks to their interrelationship and the development used in the study, it is possible to build a kind of information tree that allows multi-level analysis--even based on a single test scenario. The results obtained may also imply further research related to the refinement of indicator methods to help assess the effectiveness of concept maps. This may involve testing other types of maps or modifying proposed solutions. Taking into account the human factor of performance evaluation, it is certainly worth focusing our attention on AI methods that can show better interpretative properties and can support the process of evaluating map effectiveness.