Google Maps Heuristic Evaluation

“Google Maps” for Desktop/Mobile – A Heuristic Evaluation Report Prepared by: AJ Polanco, for 16:137:535 “Usability Evaluation” Compiled on: October 31, 2014

Team members of Team Android (2014) include: -

AJ Polanco, UX Design + Digital Marketing Lead at 4food

-

Chika Obiora, former Sensory Lab Technician/Panel Leader at Chromocell Corporation

-

Sam Ramezanli, former Junior Android and Java Developer at MKS Systems

I.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to practice running a Heuristic Evaluation. This report is a walkthrough of the heuristic evaluation process that our team, Team Android, followed for Google Maps’ desktop website and mobile application. The specific goals of this project are to provide the following: II. An executive summary of our findings; III. A quick description of Google Maps’ interface; IV. A grading of Google Maps according to Neilsen’s heuristics with severity rankings; V. A list of recommendations for what should be improved upon, with regards to Google Map’s interface; and VI. A conclusion that speaks to the viability of Google Map’s interface in terms of “user friendliness.”

II.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We, Team Android, used ten design/usability guidelines (Nielsen’s Heuristics) to perform a heuristic evaluation of Google Map’s desktop website and mobile application. These heuristics are: 1. Visibility of system status; 2. Match between system and real world; 3. User control and freedom; 4. Consistency and standards; 5. Error prevention; 6. Recognition rather than recall; 7. Flexibility and efficiency of use; 8. Aesthetic and minimalist design; 9. Help users recognize, diagnose, recover from errors, 10. Help and documentation. Among usability problems that we found in our evaluation were the following: (a) not adhering to the standard of two entry-fields on the first screen of a wayfinding / map interface [To & From]; (b) the lack of being able to undo all actions via on-screen interface; (c) using graphics / iconography that is ambiguous; (d) hiding “Offline Maps” [mobile] functionality in an unclear location; (e) not universally changing measuring units when a map’s scale is altered.

III.

QUICK DESCRIPTION OF GOOGLE MAPS’ INTERFACES

Desktop: The desktop version of Google Maps strives for an extremely minimalist user interface. Nearly all of the visible screen real-estate is devoted to the map that is being navigated. The primary UI item is a single search bar on the top of the screen. It is coupled with a large, blue search button and a small menu for “Traffic, Bicycling, Terrain” information and/or getting directions. Additionally, there is a prominent “Sign in” call-to-action in the top-right corner. Upon entering a search query, new panes appear to provide information about what location has been searched. Mobile: The mobile application is similar to its desktop counterpart in that it also strives for a very minimal interface, and its main UI is a search bar at the top. The key difference between mobile and desktop is the existence of a “Navigation” mode that is instantiated after a user has inputted a travel origin and destination. In this mode, the application functions similar to other GPS applications, with a cockpit graphic that follows a path in real-time until the desired location has been reached. 1

“Google Maps” for Desktop/Android – A Heuristic Evaluation Report | Team Android (2014)

IV.

FINDINGS FOR EACH OF NIELSEN’S HEURISTICS W/ SEVERITY RATINGS

When using Nielsen’s Heuristics to evaluate Google Maps’ interface, we used a severity scale of 0 to 5: A score of 0 means that we don’t agree that the heuristic is a usability problem; score of 1 means that the heuristic is only affected by cosmetic issues; score of 2, a minor usability problem; score of 3, major usability problem that is important to fix; score of 4, catastrophic usability problem that is imperative to fix. For heuristic #1, Visibility of system status, we gave Google Maps a severity of 1/4. Desktop version: The website clearly displays search results when the user searches for an item via the searchbar (“searching” status). Upon selecting a search result, a prompt to save the location and/or receive directions appears. When two route end points [To & From] are entered, a path appears on the map to signify that Google Maps is in “route mode.” (This mode has no official name, and functionally/visually differs from “navigation mode” on mobile—so we gave it a different name.) Mobile version: System status is not mentioned clearly on each page. The user can see the map when the Google Maps application has been opened, but there is no explicit indication of whether the user is in “navigation mode” or “map mode.”

Fig 4.1 – Left: “Searching mode” on Google Maps Desktop; Right: “Lists Results” (searching mode equivalent) screen on Google Maps Mobile App

2

“Google Maps” for Desktop/Android – A Heuristic Evaluation Report | Team Android (2014)

For heuristic #2, Match between system and real world, we gave a severity of 0/4. Desktop + Mobile version: Google Maps uses clear iconography / graphics for its travel buttons. These buttons reference the real-world models of transportation that they representing— i.e. a picture of a car for “driving directions”; a picture of a train for “transit directions”; a person for “walking directions”; a person riding a bike for “cycling directions”; a plan for “flight directions.”

Fig 4.2 – Google Maps travel graphics / iconography. For heuristic #3, User control and freedom, we gave a severity ranking of 2/4. Desktop version: When performing search actions, Google Maps provides a “X” button for clearing one’s Google Maps route. There is no on-screen method for undoing this action however. There are two workarounds for this issue: (1) recreate the search through the provided search history or (2) use the browser’s forward and back buttons. Mobile version: By using the hardware “back button” on one’s phone, the user can always cancel a task, revert to a previous software state, and/or get out of “navigation mode.” Similar to desktop, the user cannot immediately repopulate a search query that they have canceled or removed. For heuristic #4, Consistency and Standards, we gave a severity ranking of 2/4. Desktop version: Most graphics mirror those used in similar mapping software. There are only a few situations where the graphics may be ambiguous, partly because they are unique to Google Maps. These examples include the “Pin Man” (the yellow man-graphic that starts “street view”) and “Show imagery” buttons. This issue could be considered cosmetic in nature because these functions were pioneered by Google.

Fig 4.3 – Google Pin Man (red) and “Show imagery” (purple).

Unfortunately, the heuristic becomes a rank-2 severity (a minor usability issue) when Google Map’s implementation of a map scale is examined. When the user clicks on the scale, the map’s units appear to change from miles to kilometers and vice-versa. This expectation is not realized when the user queries for directions. The units remain fixed at their default unless the user changes the map’s units in another UI location. 3

“Google Maps” for Desktop/Android – A Heuristic Evaluation Report | Team Android (2014)

Mobile version: Street view is not instantiated through the use of the drag-and-drop “Pin Man” that is present in the desktop version. Instead, the user must intuit to swipe-up from the bottom of the screen after searching for a location. Two other standards problems that we encountered are: 1) “Offline Maps” functionality is stored in a hidden location, and 2) there is no way to “Suggest an edit” for a location listing on Mobile, but there is a way on Desktop. For heuristic #5, Error Prevention, we gave a severity ranking of 2/4. Desktop + Mobile version: There are no error messages provided by Google Maps. We do not feel that there is a particularly strong usability concern created by this void. On a positive note, Google Maps provides a method for reversing the search items typed into the To & From fields when searching for directions. We believe this is a strong solution for correcting / preventing any issues of this type.

Fig 4.3 – “X” button (red) and Reversing button (purple). For heuristic #6, Recognition rather than recall, we gave a severity ranking of 1/4. Desktop + Mobile version: User needs to remember how to get Google Maps to create a second search field for entering one’s starting location— as opposed to it always being present. (This is done by entering the destination, and waiting for the application to prompt you for the starting location.) On a positive note, Google Maps stores your search history. This dramatically reduces the need of the user to recall the names and/or addresses of previously visited locations. For heuristic #7, Flexibility and efficiency of use, we gave a severity ranking of 1/4. Desktop + Mobile version: Again, we believe location history to be an extremely strong tool for power users to speed up their Google Maps usage. Furthermore, the integration of Google Maps with Android / Chrome browser allows the software to inform you of traffic delays (to plan accordingly), which roads to take, and how long it will take you to get home at specific times of day (ex. 5pm, after work). 4

“Google Maps” for Desktop/Android – A Heuristic Evaluation Report | Team Android (2014)

For heuristic #8, Aesthetic and minimalist design, we gave a severity ranking of 0/4. Desktop + Mobile version: We appreciate the minimalist “material” design of Google Maps and do not find it to be of any particular detriment to users. For heuristic #9, Help users recognize, diagnose, recover from errors, ranking of 2/4. Desktop + Mobile version: Google Maps has a tendency to overwrite the address of a searched-for location, and can potentially lead a user astray. In particular, this usecase could be potentially devastating if there are multiple, varied locations with similar shorthand names. For heuristic #10, Help and documentation, we gave a severity ranking of 0/4 & 2/4. Desktop version: 0/4: For Desktop, there is a guided tour that walks you through the many types of actions that a user can perform. Additionally, Google Maps is smart enough to know that a user who has already entered a search query does not need help with searching. Mobile version: 2/4: There are two side-navigation menu items entitled “Help” and “Tips and Tricks” in the Google Maps mobile application. Unfortunately, these are only accessible through the use of a data connection. This could be argued as an acceptable solution, except that the app allows for offline map storage, so help should be available offline too.

V.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE MOBILE APP’S INTERFACE

We have found that the Google Map’s interface works rather well on desktop and mobile application, but it does have some usability problems. This section of the report lists both the problems that we encountered and the solutions we propose for fixing them. For problem (a), not adhering to the standard of two entry-fields on the first screen of a wayfinding/map interface, we propose that the user be afforded the option of determining which Google Maps URL launches when the page is loaded. In other words, if a user wishes to see a more traditional wayfinding/map interface, they can be automatically redirected to https://www.google.com/maps/dir (as opposed to https://www.google.com/maps/). To implement this suggestion, it would most likely have to be integrated with Google sign-in (Google account) and/or stored in browser cookies. For problem (b), the lack of being able to undo all actions via on-screen interface, we propose creating a floating message that appears at the top of the screen when the user performs actions that can destroy their work. Namely, we recommend putting a message with an Undo link that will time-out/fade-out after a short amount of time, so as to not detract from the minimalistic, “content is kind”-style interface of Google Maps. Additionally, there is a precedent for this type of interaction in Google Mail, or Gmail, when an email is sent to Trash. 5

“Google Maps” for Desktop/Android – A Heuristic Evaluation Report | Team Android (2014)

For problem (c), using graphics / iconography that is ambiguous, we propose using these graphics in more than one location. On Desktop, both the “Pin Man” (“street view”) and “Show imagery” buttons exist solely within the bottom-right corner of the webpage. This is a lost opportunity because their functionality exists elsewhere, and could provide a profound opportunity for demystifying these graphics. In particular, “street view” exists on most search results and is only identified via text description, i.e. not graphically. For problem (d), hiding “Offline Maps” [mobile] functionality in an unclear location, we propose two solutions. Firstly, “Offline Maps” could be a toggle-able feature that is listed under General Settings. There is a precedent for this type of behavior in Google Drive. Secondly, an “Offline Maps” button could be displayed either alongside the “Start” navigation button or the “Show My Location” button that appears on top of the map in the bottom-right corner. For problem (e), not universally changing measuring units when a map’s scale is altered, we propose creating a function that appends a semantically-legible search term to Google Map’s URLs that stores whether units should be displayed in miles or km. Currently there appears to be something similar to this proposed functionality, but URL data is obscure at the moment (i.e. miles /data=!3m1!4b1!4m3!4m2!3e2!4e1, km /data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!4m1!3e2 ). For any matter, this URL data is not added when the map’s scale is clicked.

VI.

CONCLUSION ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF THE APP’S INTERFACE

Google Maps’ desktop and mobile application’s interfaces can be generally considered simple and extremely minimalist, with complex underlying technology. Our detailed heuristic evaluation, based on Nielsen’s [Ten] Heuristics, revealed that the app is not without its issues. Most of the issues are able to be solved with simple, low-cost solutions. Unfortunately, some of more the severe issues (ex. not universally changing map units) will necessitate cost/benefit analyses to determine how viable their proposed solutions are. The total list of problems that we encountered include: (a) not adhering to the standard of two entry-fields on the first screen of a wayfinding / map interface [To & From]; (b) the lack of being able to undo all actions via on-screen interface; (c) using graphics / iconography that is ambiguous; (d) hiding “Offline Maps” [mobile] functionality in an unclear location; (e) not universally changing measuring units when a map’s scale is altered. By addressing the aforementioned problem areas, Google will be able to make its well-designed desktop and mobile application even better and easier/friendlier to use.

6

“Google Maps” for Desktop/Android – A Heuristic Evaluation Report | Team Android (2014)