Embodied interaction with a 3D versus 2D mobile map

In comparison to 2D maps, 3D mobile maps involve volumetric instead of flat representation of space, realistic instead of symbolic representation of objects, more variable views that are directional and bound to a first-person perspective, more degrees of freedom in movement, and dynamically changing object details. We conducted a field experiment to understand the influence of these qualities on a mobile spatial task where buildings shown on the map were to be localized in the real world. The representational differences were reflected in how often users interact with the physical environment and in when they are more likely to physically turn and move the device, instead of using virtual commands. 2D maps direct users into using reliable and ubiquitous environmental cues like street names and crossings, and 2D better affords the use of pre-knowledge and bodily action to reduce cognitive workload. Both acclaimed virtues of 3D mobile maps—rapid identification of objects and ego-centric alignment—worked poorly due reasons we discuss. However, with practice, some 3D users learned to shift to 2D-like strategies and could thereby improve performance. We conclude with a discussion of how representational differences in mobile maps affect strategies of embodied interaction. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.