# Methodology for Conceptual Navigational 3D Chart Assessment Based on Eye Tracking Measures
## 3 Results
### Surveys  
In reporting the selected results, it is worth noting that 3D visualisation was considered by testers to be an effective navigational aid--17 responses were Yes out of 30 respondents, and it was rated as very important (14 respondents) and a visualisation valuable to have (11 respondents) to support navigation procedures. Overall, over half of all testers, both 2D and 3D maps showed interest in having 3D imaging. When analysing individual questions relating to purely cartographic aspects, testers mainly pointed to an increase in colour contrast at the background-symbol plane, a higher diversity of the shapes of object symbols, the use of object scaling due to the large number of symbols per map unit, which generated a cartographic cluttering effect, and changes in the size of specific object symbols. The summary of survey results is presented in Table 5.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Criterion** & **Females** & **Males** \\ \hline Attention distribution (heatmaps) & More dispersed & Focused \\ Focus on irrelevant elements & More frequent & Less frequent \\ Frequency of looking at the legend & Frequent & Moderate \\ Accuracy in object identification & Higher & Lower \\ Chaotic task performance & Higher & Lower \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Summary of observed differences in gaze behaviour between females and males.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Criterion** & **Experienced** & **Inexperienced** \\ \hline Attention distribution (heatmaps) & Focused & Dispersed, chaotic \\ Focus on irrelevant elements & Rare & Frequent (e.g., off-task objects) \\ Frequency of looking at the legend & Rare & Frequent \\ Accuracy in object identification & Higher & Lower \\ Chaotic task performance & Lower & Higher \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Summary of observed differences in gaze behaviour between experienced and inexperienced testers.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Precision of Results** & **Interpretation of Results** & **Objectivity** & **Advantages and** \\  & & & **Disadvantages of the Method** \\ \hline Moderately accurate & & Low level of objectivity; & Advantages: easy to use on a \\ based on subjective & Easy but often hard to & answers are generalised & large sample \\ assessments & interpret answers & and depend on & Disadvantage: subjectivity of \\  & & respondents’ opinions & responses; difficult to use in \\  & & & map series analysis \\ \hline
**Level of interpretability** & **Identified cause for** & **Most problematic map** & **Indicated reason for the** \\ of the map symbols & **distorting the** & **symbols** & **difficulty in identifying the** \\  & **interpretability** & **maps symbol** & **map symbol** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Summary of survey results.  
It was difficult to find general rules for map content interpretation. This method was more helpful in problematic scenario identification and the formulation of basic assumptions. The reason was evidently the series of maps, which made it difficult to summarise the results. This kind of survey does not give us unambiguous answers about whether concept 3D maps are more effective than 2D. Summarising this method, it can be said that potential user preferences can be established, but this is not very precise and is more subjective in nature.