Reimagining Apple Maps: New Features Based on User Insights

Introduction

Whether we are walking, biking, driving, or using public transportation, we all have destinations to reach. To navigate to these places, we rely on directions to guide us. There are many navigation apps available, but we chose to analyze Apple Maps because it was the most commonly used among our interviewees. This project examines the features of Apple Maps and explores what the design affords for users. It also considers the trade-offs involved in the design and the effectiveness of its signifiers. By comparing Apple Maps with Google Maps, Waze, AMap, and MyDrive, we evaluated the design space and identified areas for improvement. Based on our findings, we propose redesigns for certain features to address common errors made by users in our interviews.

Figure 1.1: Bar graph showing user rating of map application. The x-axis represents the score the users gave the application and the y-axis represents the total amount of users that gave the app that score.

Error Analysis

Error Identification and Classification

Users faced difficulty with the intended execution of tasks. For example, users often misspelled or mistyped the name of the address they had intended. This is considered an action-based slip, as the user had the correct place name in mind, and the error occurred in execution. This slip is known as a description similarity error due to the “correct action”, being typing a specific letter or number, performed on the “wrong object”, being a different letter or number. 

Some users failed to search along the route specifically and instead skipped straight ahead to add a stop. Since this course of action was intentional but performed incorrectly for the intended task, this error is known as a rule-based mistake. The user mistakenly interpreted the directions to search along the route as adding a stop and thus followed a correct course of action for the wrong task. 

Another rule-based mistake occurred when users were asked to set a departure time. Due to a misinterpretation of the “set a reminder to leave” option, a user incidentally set up a time to be notified of their departure rather than receiving accurate directions and diagnostics if they were to depart at that given time. The user’s mental model of setting a departure time was inherently incorrect, as they did not understand what inputting the departure time was meant to provide for them, instead setting up a notification and not seeing the error that had occurred,

One user had trouble identifying the symbol signifiers when asked to switch between transportation modes. This can accurately be referred to as a knowledge-based mistake, as the user lacked the knowledge of the symbolic representations of the modes of transportation, leading to errors in switching between settings. The user intended to click the buttons they selected but failed to do so accurately to the prompt due to this knowledge deficit. 

Additionally, users expressed several mode error slips due to software bugs. Oftentimes, users had the “avoid highways” setting enabled when they had not enabled it in the first place. Though the user’s mental model of setting up directions was correct, their error occurred in execution when they failed to realize this setting was still enabled before starting their route.

General Patterns/Trends:

As we interviewed users regarding their usage of map applications, there were many patterns that emerged. All 12 interviewees were easily able to start directions, search along a route, and toggle the “avoid tollways and highways” features. As previously mentioned in the Error Identification and Classification section, 4 out of 12 of the interviewees had some difficulties switching between the different transportation features due to knowledge-based mistakes. For instance, the users did not know the different symbols and the steps needed to switch between the features. Based on Figure 1, we noticed that all 12 interviewees felt that these map applications were very useful, rating them a 4 or 5. Despite the minor errors that these users faced, they still found that the application was able to get them to their destination efficiently regardless of the transportation they chose. 

Another pattern we noticed was that 5 out of 12 interviewees had difficulties with the automated voice system in the app. They disliked the voice system for several reasons which include a delay in directions, an unnatural tone, and not knowing how to change the voice. This not only makes getting to destinations difficult but also disrupts user experience, highlighting a poor execution of constraints within the design of the voice system. We also found that the top 2 map applications used by users were Google Maps and Apple Maps. Overall, the distribution was split evenly with 6 interviewees using Google Maps and the other 7 interviewees using Apple Maps.

Trade-Offs:

Simplicity vs. Features

One trade-off that we observed was simplicity vs. features. Although more features afford better functionality, more features can also affect the simplicity of the app. For instance, one user suggested rain and thunder animations to reflect the current weather conditions. However, this design can make the interface more visually cluttered and distracting, especially for users who prioritize clear navigation over aesthetic elements. On the other hand, if the app prioritizes simplicity too much, then it may remove or hide features that make the app lack signifiers that users might find helpful. For example, a user might try to toggle between the different transportation options only to find that it is tucked away in a settings menu. This trade-off can lead to a knowledge-based mistake because the user lacks knowledge of where the option to switch between transportation options can be.

Accuracy vs. Adjustability

Another trade-off that we observed was accuracy vs. adjustability. The ability of the app to be able to adjust routes based on real-time traffic conditions such as accidents or road closures affords users to reach their destination more efficiently. While accuracy affords for users to take the most efficient route, too much automatic rerouting can make navigation confusing, For instance, one user mentioned that the Google Maps voice system announces “you’ve arrived” too soon, automatically ending the navigation before they arrive at the destination which can confuse the user. On the other hand, if the app prioritizes adjustability too much, there could be unnecessary changes to their route. For example, one user had to turn off “avoid highways” because it was altering their route. This trade-off can lead to a rule-based mistake because the user is following the correct route but is unknowingly being rerouted causing them to be confused. 

Design Space

Figure 2.1: Design Space for Simplicity vs. Features. This visual shows the trade-off of simplicity versus amount of features. The application should have a simple and easy-to-understand interface, but should also have an array of advanced features, allowing for many actions to be performed.

Redesign

A common issue reported by three of our interviewees while using Apple Maps was the inability to save specific locations in one place. In the current mobile version of Apple Maps, the users are to save locations under the “Library.” However, the design of this library feature has led to user confusion and frustration. In addition to this, an interviewee commented on how they want a feature that allows them to save locations under a “want to visit” tab. To address this, we designed a new feature, renaming the “Library” tab to the “Favorites” tab that includes a “Saved Locations” section and a “Want to Visit" tab. This is shown in Figure 6.1.  Users can add a location to either section by tapping the blue plus button in the bottom right corner of the screen. This allows them to categorize a place as either a saved location or a place they want to visit. Additionally, the feature integrates Siri Suggestions, recommending locations based on frequent visits, nearby places, or commonly searched destinations. In general, this design allows users to save locations in one, organized place within the app.

Figure 3.2: Shows the “Vehicle Customization” window which allows users to customize their interface. Depending on the vehicle the user chooses, the reroute option will automatically adjust based on the vehicle.

Redesign Tradeoffs: 

The redesign of Apple Maps still maintains the same interface of the current version of Apple maps. Our design of Apple maps redesigns a specific feature of Apple Maps and implements two new features based on user feedback. The difference in the design features is discoverability. In our interviews, users complained that the bookmarking system of Apple maps was either non-existent or hard to use. While the library system within Apple maps serves as a bookmark for locations, the interface of the design has left users frustrated and unaware of how to properly utilize its features. To combat this, we reimagined the library system into a simpler and more organized layout with labels that properly organize saved locations to their respective categories. 

In our design space axes (Figures 2.1 and 2.2), we visualized the tradeoffs between the redesigned Apple Maps and the current Apple Maps. In Figure 5.1, Apple Maps is analyzed to have a median amount of features. This adds to a simplistic approach for the app, which can be seen as a tradeoff. Our redesign of the app has two additive features: vehicle customization, and a search along route feature, this could possibly lead to more complex design for the redesigned app. However, because we designed the new features in a minimalist and simple approach, our design retains the same level of functionality and simplicity as the current Apple maps.