Crime mapping conference 2009

Talke Hoppmann, User Experience Consultant 7th National Crime Mapping Conference, Cimex, 53-55 Scrutton Street, EC2A 4PJ London, www.cimex.com Manchester 2009

Presenting crime maps online: effectiveness, usability & user preferences

Exploring the use of tables, maps and graphs for statistical data presentation on the Internet

Talke K. Hoppmann, PhD cand., UX consultantDr. Katerina Tzanidou, Head of User experienceNiki Economidou, UX researcher


2


3

Why user research?

Home Secretary’s Policing Green Paper, Jul ‘08

‘Summary of responses and next steps’, Nov ‘08

require police forces to deliver crime rates and present information more effectively to engage with the public

= Crime maps go public

…to find out which form of data display is most effective and to understand problems users face


4

User experience research

- How ‘real users’ interact with the system

- In-house usability labs

- Using video equipment, eye-tracking device & recording software

- Testing on websites or clickable wireframes

- Implementing findings into IA and design


5

User testing output


6

Project overview

Examine crime statistics in tables, graphs & maps

6 Examples- Beatcrime, West Yorkshire

- MyNeighbourhood, West Midlands

- GMP, Greater Manchester

- Crime mapping, London

- Everyblock, Chicago

- UpMyStreet

Regional, UK

National, UK

Regional, US


7

Research questions

- Which elements of the sites are (not) working well?

- What are problems or barriers?

- On which sites do users perform best/worst?

- How do they rate the design?

- What are user interests and possible applications?


8

Method

6 x 90 minute one-on-one sessions (3 male, 3 female)

Method Purpose

Pre-session interview Knowledge of online- and crime maps

Eye-tracking Search task for testing performance

Think-aloud interaction

Search scenario (moving to a new area) for interacting with the site, extracting information

Design ratings Comparing sites & user preferences

Post-session interview

Alternative applications, comments & feedback

Eye-tracking Search task for testing performance

Think-aloud interaction

Search scenario (moving to a new area) for interacting with the site, extracting information


9

Eye-tracking findings

Examples of different search processes


10

Eye-tracking task - total crime in Camden (2006-2007)

‘Crime Mapping’ website (MET, London)

Key findings- All cases show a strong focus on the pop-up

window & graph

Patterns- Even though data are right there, extracting

information takes time- Graph seems to be unclear- If pop-up doesn’t provide information, users

start scanning left and right

Timings- One of the longest search processes (10-27

sec compared to ~14 sec on average)

1. Strong focus on the graph2. Extracting information takes long


11

Eye-tracking task - total crime level in East Salford, 2008

‘GMP’ website (Greater Manchester)

Key findings- First focus on map, then straight to the graphs- Highly directed search for information

Patterns- Most examined graphs left to right - Due to information overload, users wanted to verify and

check their answers- Extracting information took very long

Timings- Longest search process (13-35 sec)

2nd focus on graphs

1st focus on map


12

Eye-tracking task – crime rate in South Chicago

‘Everyblock’ website (Chicago)

Key findings- Gaze plots show two search patterns- Search length connected to order

(the later, the longer and more varied)

Patterns- Short searches = merely guessing

- Long searches = users try to verify information in the map

Timings- Broadest range of search processes

(from 1.6 sec to 45.9 sec)

Strong focus

Global scanning


13

Eye-tracking task – total no. of robberies in Nottingham,

2007/8

‘UpMyStreet’ website (National)

Key findings- Good user performance- Very clear and easy

Patterns- Quick to access the information- Tables seem to be working best for displaying

statistical data

Timings- Overall shortest search process

(ranging from 3.7- 9.2)

Note: Ease of use also due to task (find the total crime rate)

Immediate focus on the table data


14

Site users spent most time on overall

Site users spent least time on

User performance across sites


15

Think aloud findings

Examples of different search processes


16

Think Aloud Task – no. of burglaries in Bradford South

Division

‘Beatcrime’ website (West Yorkshire)

Key findings- Design = negative, use = positive

Data presentation- Map is not interactive- Table is simple and (relatively) clear- Lack of professionalism = impact on trust- Time period & crime type are clear

Other- Clear pull-down menu, but ‘invisible’ radio-buttons

- The later, the more positively evaluated


17

Key findings- Top navigation not visible enough- Combination both positive & confusing

Data presentation- Problems of consistency & labelling

(e.g. NEXT button)- Default search set to postcode - Map = labels/tool tips missing,

lack of meaningful colour coding - Table = time period & crime type clear

Other- Users did usually not find the data table

Think Aloud Task – residential burglaries in Dudley Town

‘MyNeighbourhood’ website (West Midlands)


18

Key findings- Good and interactive experience- Meaningful colour coding

Data presentation- Higher level of detail needed

(“What does average refer to?”)- Better comparison options expected

Other- Pull-down menu easily understood

(not always easily applied however!)- Most technical difficulties- Clearer divides between areas

Think Aloud Task – residential burglaries in Hackney (2006/7)

‘Crime Mapping’ website (London)


19

Key findings- Lack of consistency- Colour coding without meaning

Data presentation- Bad use of space – map too far from statistics- Area selection by map = easy to use- Time period unclear, too difficult and overloaded- Takes too long to find information

Other- Table view often preferred to graphs

Think Aloud Task – no. of burglaries in Bolton Central

‘GMP’ website (Greater Manchester)


20

Key findings- Quickest search process

Data presentation- Easily accessible information- Clear, clean, straightforward- Good – comparison to average- Lacking more detailed information

Other- Further information links – no further information- Map preferred for comparison, but only when

meaningful

Think Aloud Task – no. of burglaries in Bristol

‘UpMyStreet’ website (National)


21

So far…

None of the online crime maps or statistics gets it completely right


22

Findings

Tables provided the quickest & easiest data access

Graphs immediately connected to statistics and can contain in-depth information, but may take too long to extract data

Maps serve three main purposes

1. for area selection (purely functional)2. for getting an overview3. for comparing areas/crime rates


23

4. Provide points of reference users are familiar with to further understanding of statistics

5. Interactivity enhances user experience but has to allow filtering information according to user needs

3. Connect maps & other data to allow users to verify the data and build trust in the source

2. Colour-code maps in a meaningful way(i.e. the darker the colour, the higher the crime rate)

1. Carefully consider which data to display in which form,some data are better provided in e.g. tables

Recommendations

Conduct user research to find out about problems and barriers prior to publishing statistical data or maps online


24

Questions?

Talke Hoppmann, User experience consultant

[email protected]

Ian Haynes, E-learning director

[email protected]

Technology

Crime mapping conference 2009