Voting Results

Due to the fact that the GEO label representations was still undergoing iterative design and development during the course of community voting (see section 6.4), three subsets of voting results were collected (see Table 6.9, Table 6.10 and Table 6.11).

Table 6.9: Results of the on-site voting for the initial GEO label designs.

Circular Design Rectangular Design

Neither Design

On-site Votes 58.3% 41.7% 0.0%

Table 6.10: Results of the online voting for the updated GEO label designs.

Circular Design Rectangular Design

Neither Design

Online Votes 65.0% 25.0% 10.0%

Table 6.11: Results of the online voting for the finalised GEO label designs.

Circular Design Rectangular Design

Neither Design

Online Votes 85.7% 14.3% 0.0%

As can be seen from Tables 6.9 – 6.11, despite the fact that the icons, colour scheme and the facets were varied during the voting window, the circular GEO label representation

remained the most favoured by the geospatial community. As can be seen from Table 6.9, on-site voters were less polarised in their preference for one design over the other; it is anticipated that this may be because these voters were provided with fairly limited information about the GEO label and its intended purpose upon which to make a fully informed design selection. In contrast, the online voters had the advantage of access, via the website, to more detailed information about the GEO label and its underlying studies; furthermore, some of the online voters had participated in the earlier GEO label studies.

When voting for a GEO label design, the on-site participants were asked to elaborate on what influenced their selection decision. The voters who selected the circular layout explained that it utilises available space more efficiently and the clock-like design makes it much easier to navigate the facets. These results indicate that a hybrid of the initial circular and the star designs is, indeed, more effective at conveying information availability than the initial design proposals. While the initial circular design only used a small fraction of the label space to convey information availability (i.e., only icons was signalling the availability state), the hybrid design effectively utilised the whole area to communicate information to users. With added visual partitioning to separate the facets, the clock-like layout became more apparent making facet navigation easier and more intuitive. As a result, the participants argued that the arrangement of the circular facets allows them to better capture information availability at a glance, something which they felt was much harder to achieve with the rectangular layout. It was also suggested that the circular arrangement appears more harmonised and actually looks like a label. The majority of the respondents who voted for the rectangular layout explained that the linear arrangement of facets allows for larger icons, making it easier to distinguish facet symbols. Some of the voters simply stated that they generally dislike circular designs and prefer to work with linear shapes.

The participants who voted online were also required to provide feedback on their selection decision. The voters who selected the circular design stated that this layout feels more “inclusive” and is very simple and easy to understand. It was also suggested that having directionality in the clock-like position of facets will allow easy browsing and comparison of a large number of dataset labels. While the questionnaire results indicated that the initial circular layout was neither intuitive nor effective, the applied modifications seemed to alleviate these issues. Other voters did not provide direct comments about the label layouts, but instead suggested softening the colour scheme, replacing an ISO symbol with something more generic (this relates to the first of the voted-on label designs), and providing more examples of real labels that are based on real geospatial datasets. The minority who preferred the rectangular GEO label design perceived this design as more dynamic and extensible; respondents who voted for this layout suggested that, if needed in the future, an

additional facet could easily be added to a rectangular label. It was also argued that the rectangular layout is more suitable for websites because it does not produce a lot of wasted space and the facets are bigger and easier to click. Voters who did not select any of the GEO label designs (a clear minority) argued that the label is too complex for a simple logo and “will create unnecessary confusion and diminish the overall effectiveness of GEO”.

The experts’ comments collected from on-site and online voting suggested that the circular GEO label design is more effective at conveying information availability. The directional position of the facets provides immediate visual feedback on what information is available and supports better facet recognition and recall. Consequently, it is believed that the circular design will better support cognitive processing of a large number of dataset labels at once. Feedback provided to support the rectangular label layout did not strongly indicate its effectiveness at conveying information availability. Although it was argued that the rectangular GEO label design offers larger facet icons, this would be of greatest advantage for novice label users rather than expert GEO label users who, it is anticipated, will primarily rely on the position and colour of given facets rather than their iconic representations. Although, as proposed by voters, extension of the rectangular label would perhaps be easier, having too many label facets in total would diminish the effectiveness of the GEO label as a whole, and so the current total of 8 facets is an advisable maximum for the label.

On the basis of voting outcomes, it was concluded that the final GEO label visualisation should adopt the circular layout. The following section provides, therefore, the final and definitive specification for the circular GEO label.