2004. I began analyzing the world of online maps. I conducted an exploratory study aimed at understanding users’ needs and whether those needs were met with the existing mapping tools.

Main finding of the studyVery distinct user profiles with very distinct tasks in mind. No one was looking for complex features. Instead, users were begging for little features to support their tasks. Some participants’ comments:



The very main finding of the study was the need for a simple, yet not avilable in any mapping tool (including Google Maps, which was released in 2005). The feature was no less than the need for multiples. I explain this below. In short, it refers to the ability to plot two or more items on the map and compare them in relation to a known location.

The resulting designThe application had to meet actual user needs while taking into consideration cognitive aspects of orientation and way-finding while meeting the needs of advertisers. With some deviations from the intended design and certain features still to come, the result may be found at: http://yellowpages.superpages.com/mapbasedsearch/ To understand user needs, I conducted the following:

1. A comparative study of mapping sites.
   
   In usability lab, participants compared and discussed various aspects of five different mapping sites. Participants were first interviewed about their use of mapping sites and the purposes for which they used the sites. Participants were then asked to demonstrate how they went about performing their common tasks and were asked to complete those tasks using the five sites chosen for the study.
2. Prior work in orientation and wayfinding
   
   I researched the psychology literature for background information on orientation and wayfinding, which led me to wonderful work by Barbara Tverski (Dept. of Psychology at Stanford) and to Magresh Agrawala’s LineDrive among others. Fantastic work is also described in “Maps in Minds, Reflections on Cognitive Mapping”, by Roger M. Downs, published in 1977.
   
   
   
   LineDrive
3. A third effort consisted on identifying how people give directions and draw maps to give out to others, for which I interviewed 8 participants.
4. An online questionnaire designed to further understand mapping needs was distributed to roughly 50 respondents.
5. I compiled and analyzed over a thousand messages, all about our maps application, received in the customer service departmentthrough the “Send Us Your Feedback” feature on the site.
6. Another person in the group was in charge of managing a long-term nationwide panel in which participants provided detailed narratives of their experiences with online maps.

Next was the realization of how far online mapping sites were from how people function, think, speak, draw and what their goals and tasks are. I was amazed. The problems identified were far too many to list here. A classic trees vs. forest situation. Here are the most notable.

Printing Lots of problems there, with little user control. Main source of frustration.

Sharing Sharing with a friend who’s coming to your place or sharing with a boss who’s going on a trip are rather common, yet very distinct activities. Features supporting these tasks are not there even today.

Multiples The need for multiples appears in various situations. For example, people do not go only to one place at a time. They often times drive to multiple locations in a day. Consider sales people.

Data quality It actually was (and still is) a big problem throughout the industry, but I won’t get into details here because it is long.

Driving directions Also various problems here, including the fact that people cannot skip or remove the various steps that take them from home to the highway. They all know how to get to the highway from home, and so they don't want those in their printouts.

Advertising Simply, too much of it. It gets worse when it is forced on the printout. It also isn't relevant. People do not mind it if it is relevant.

Personalization Basic personalization features were missing. Things like saving addresses or locating business contacts were brought up.

Usability A number of problems there as well. From very structured interfaces that only allow you to do one thing at a time, to few error-recovery options, just to name a couple. It’s now Feb. of 2005. The world goes wild. Next thing you know, everybody is dragging maps. But the problem is far from solved.

It is not so much that Google aims to organize the world’s information. They organize how we function, how we think and how we approach tasks, including those that involve maps… and I love it.

Google Maps: Awesome? Yes, for some things. But does Google Maps consider how your brain processes geographic information? Does Google Maps help build (and retain) an image of the geography you are navigating? Does Google Maps consider the various types of mapping-related search tasks you might need to do? Can any of the online maps answer yes to any of these questions? No. They are too focused on advertising.

It is hard enough to deliver mapping data, quickly and accurately. It is hard enough to let you drag a map on your browser fast enough so that it is not unbearable. That, I realize. However, I am still amazed at the huge gap between what online mapping sites offer and what users are attempting to do. And it is not even that complex.

Let’s take a step back. Have you ever moved to a new office building? A new neighborhood? A new city? A new country? How long did it take you to learn the new location like the palm of your hand? Most likely, a while. A long while. In Maps in Minds, Roger Downs describes three steps in the process of learning a new geographic space.

1. First, we identify landmarks. Landmarks are gas stations, after which we turn right or left, or a glass building, or a red awning, or something that stands out from the rest in a given location. Landmarks are generally used as control points, or turning points.
2. Second, we learn paths between landmarks, even though they are not always the shortest path, but is one that works.
3. Third, we gain configuration knowledge of the environment: not only we know where the various landmarks are in relation to one another but we are able to skip turning points in our navigation.

Landmarks are the most important elements when we navigate geographic spaces. They help us measure and verify progress. This was instantly verified when I asked people to give me directions from downtown Boston to a familiar location, such as home or a favorite restaurant.

The importance of landmarks and the needs of advertisers
Understanding how people navigate unfamiliar geographical spaces and realizing the importance of landmarks lead the way to a patented application bringing landmarks to driving directions. Online maps are still in their infancy and already serve millions every day. The potential to serve customers is almost unlimited and yet, the focus (appears) is to place as many advertisements as possible in the already cluttered real estate. Users notice, and feel, this. I mean “feel” because ads are everywhere and are not relevant. Before arriving at the site, the user knows what is being sought and what the expected outcome of the search is. My research, and that of many others, indicates that advertising are in fact welcome by users if they were, simply, relevant.

User needs very almost from person to person. There is no one-size-fits-all. Users are craving for features that serve their needs. Many features. Not complex features, just varied features based on each individual’s profile.

Don’t plot advertisers hoping that users will click on them a million times. Understand what the user is trying to do. Display advertisers that support a task, not a keyword. Know your users.