WAYFINDING IN LIBRARIES: CAN PROBLEMS BE … · To recap, space syntax provides quantitative descriptions of built environments based on their configurational information, and potentially

WAYFINDING IN LIBRARIES: CAN PROBLEMS BE PREDICTED?

Abstract. The main library at the authors’ university campus with its large size and multiple-level structures is challenging for patrons to navigate. Requests for directions are among the most frequently posed questions at help desks in this library. As a first step toward improving wayfinding aids, such as maps or signs, we took a spatial science perspective of combining spatial and behavioral approaches to reveal objectively areas where wayfinding problems occur. To this end, we employed formal spatial descriptions of the environment addressing visibility, layout complexity, and connectivity. The term coined in the literature for these methods is space syntax. Additionally, we used a behavioral approach to investigate actual wayfinding behaviors of library patrons and compared these behaviors to the results of the space syntax analysis. The results show that a building’s layout complexity and visual access potentially predicts how well patrons find their goals (books). Other aspects such as individual characteristics of patrons or signs were also found to play a role in understanding human wayfinding performance. The goal of this study was to broadly explore wayfinding problems in relation to the environment and to individual characteristics of patrons, such as their familiarity and sense of direction. Our approach introduces an objective perspective to assess wayfinding problems in libraries. Thereby, it provides potentially valuable information for library administrators to improve the design of library wayfinding systems. Keywords: Wayfinding, space syntax, library, wayfinding systems.

BY

RUI LI and ALEXANDER KLIPPEL

GeoVISTA Center, Department of Geography

The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA, USA

Wayfinding in Libraries 2

WAYFINDING IN LIBRARIES: CAN PROBLEMS BE PREDICTED?

Introduction

Anecdotally referred to as a maze, the interior spaces of the main library on the authors’

university campus (hereafter, “the library”) are a challenge for patrons to navigate. The library’s

three wings (Paterno, Central Stacks, and West Pattee) are connected only on the first floor and

all have different physical structures and layouts. This layout complexity increases the possibility

of patrons having trouble finding their way, and these troubles persist despite considerable

efforts on the part of library administration to install new signage. We identified two important

research questions: 1) whether the current wayfinding systems are informative and cognitively

adequate according to the requirement of effectively solving wayfinding problems (Strube,

1992); and 2) where library patrons have wayfinding problems, and whether these places can be

identified through a quantitative assessment of environment characteristics.

Both research questions attempt to reveal wayfinding problems in the library. The first

research question addresses individual strategies for acquiring knowledge from wayfinding

systems and using this knowledge to navigate effectively. For example, maps are commonly

used to provide general location information about the major areas of the library. However,

designing maps specifically for wayfinding support is not trivial, and, for example, orienting a

map such that it is misaligned with the map readers’ frame of reference (for example, “up” in the

map should correspond to “in front of”) increases their cognitive load in interpreting the map

(Levine, 1982; Warren and Scott, 1993; Shepard and Hurwitz, 1984). A comprehensive overview

of design considerations for these location specific you-are-here (YAH) maps, extending the

original work by Levine (1982), can be found in Klippel et al. (2006). Factors going into YAH


map design can be attributed to the relation between environment and map or to map

characteristics as such. In case of the latter, for example, the amount of information shown on a

YAH map influences how quickly and how accurately that information can be read (Meilinger et

al., 2007). Similarly, using signs requires careful planning, as misplacing signs can increase the

chance of causing people to get lost(Carr, 2006).

The second and more central focus of this paper is analyzing the influences of both the

physical environment and patrons’ individual characteristics on wayfinding performance in

libraries. By physical environment, we mean (for example) the building layout, book stacks

structure, and the book cataloguing/organization scheme, all of which can play a large part in

determining how easy or how difficult it is for patrons to find their way. Likewise, individual

characteristics include a) how familiar a patron is with the library and b) how good the patron’s

general sense of direction (spatial awareness). In sum, as an essential step to improve wayfinding

systems and reducing wayfinding problems, this study attempts to identify aspects of both

physical environment and individual spatial awareness which potentially cause wayfinding

problems in the library.

In this article, we first introduce theories that elucidate environmental factors potentially

related to indoor wayfinding problems. We then give brief descriptions of the tools we chose to

formally analyze the environment. We present a behavioral study that we designed to shed light

on the intricate relationship between environmental and individual characteristics and

wayfinding performance. We present the results of both formal analyses and behavioral

experiments. Finally, because the wayfinding problems we identified may be common to

multiple indoor environments, we provide suggestions of possible improvements to the


wayfinding systems, both those tailored to the library in this study, but also recommendations for

public buildings in general.

Assessing Environmental Characteristics

Human wayfinding behaviors are influenced by different factors of the physical

environment. The three most important factors were identified by Lynch (1960) to reflect the

ease of understanding and finding one’s way in an environment: 1) differentiation of the

environment, 2) visual access, and 3) complexity of the spatial layout. Lynch also introduced the

term legibility to describe how characteristics of different environments contribute differently to

the development of cognitive maps and to subsequent wayfinding behaviors. In the following

paragraphs, we introduce each factor and then summarize their relation to wayfinding problems.

First, the degree of differentiation can help wayfinders recognize locations. Evans and

collaborators (1984) suggested that varying sizes, forms, colors or architectural styles can help

wayfinders distinguish locations. If a location is easily distinguished from others, the likelihood

of getting lost would be lower. In a library environment for example, signs and color codes are

used to specify locations of collections. As many libraries expand over time through the addition

of wings or new buildings, they may also have architecturally distinguishing characteristics.

These features are, potentially, used by patrons to identify their current location.

Second, visual access, also referred to as visibility, is a measure of how much and how

far a wayfinder can see from a specific location. The higher the visibility of a location, the better

its visual access is. Studies have shown that higher visibility potentially helps spatial orientation

and wayfinding (Gärling et al., 1983). In the present study, it is important to note that areas

formerly intended only to store books have been opened to public access (the Central Stacks).

These areas have very different characteristics than those designed with patrons in mind.


Third, the complexity of the spatial layout is a little more difficult to define concisely.

Aspects related to complexity are the size of the environment, the number of possible

destinations and routes, and whether the routes intersect at right angles or not.

The factors discussed above do not measure orthogonal (independent) environmental

characteristics. It is likely that, for example, a simple layout increases visual access. In libraries,

the layout created by book stacks (long rows of bookshelves and narrow corridors) increases

layout complexity and decreases visibility at the same time.

In general, it is important to understand the influences of different factors of physical

environments on wayfinding behaviors. In the following section, we introduce the term space

syntax which is a summary term for multiple methods to quantitatively analyze physical

environmental factors. Our particular approach allows us to compare different environments and

to potentially link wayfinding behaviors to environmental characteristics.

Space Syntax

Originally a set of methods used in urban studies and social theory, space syntax has been

adopted in wayfinding research to help understand the relationship between physical

environments and wayfinding behaviors through formal, quantitative characterization of the

environment. It is “one [way] of representing and quantifying aspects of the built environment

and then using these as the independent variables in a statistical analysis of observed behavioral

patterns” (Penn, 2003, p. 34). Space syntax has been modified for use in other disciplines to

capture relevant aspects of physical environments. The most popular space syntax methods

include isovists (Benedikt, 1979), axial maps (Hillier and Hanson, 1984), visibility graph

analysis (VGA) (Turner et al., 2001), and interconnection density (ICD) (O'Neill, 1991). In the


present study, the following space syntax methods were selected: axial maps, VGA and ICD.

They address three important and complementary aspects of environments previously discussed:

visibility, connectivity, and layout complexity. Detailed explanations of each method and

resulting formal descriptions of the library environment are provided in the results section.

Space syntax has been used to correlate human wayfinding behaviors with indoor

building characteristics. For example, Wiener and Franz (2004) asked participants to find the

best indoor overview or hiding place. They found that either the best overview place or hiding

place was directly related to the visibility of locations. Hence, space syntax, with its formal

definitions of visibility, seems to be an effective analytical tool for predicting participants’

choices of indoor locations. Additionally, space syntax methods were able to shed light on

participants’ indoor wayfinding strategies. Hölscher et al. (2006) used space syntax to correlated

with individuals’ preferences for certain wayfinding strategies in a complex building.

Wayfinders were more inclined to walk in areas where the connectivity of routes and visibility

were higher. However, the correlation between space syntax analysis and spatial behaviors is

questioned by some researchers. For example, Davies and Peebles (2010) found it problematic to

predict orientation performance from 2D spatial layout alone (as assessed by several space

syntax measures). By using three space syntax measures as well as considering the role of signs

not included in the assessment of space syntax, we hope to increase the potential for relating

formal, quantitative characterizations of environments and spatial behaviors.

To recap, space syntax provides quantitative descriptions of built environments based on

their configurational information, and potentially quantifies spatial intelligibility of a space

which is “the property of the space that allows a situated or immersed observer to understand it

in such a way as to be able to find his or her way around it” (Bafna, 2003, p. 26). Although space


syntax does not provide fully comprehensive descriptions of environments, it quantifies several

aspects of the environment (e.g. layout complexity and visual access) that potentially contribute

to understand wayfinding behaviors. In this article, we designed a behavioral study to provide

not only an assessment of wayfinding behaviors in a library but also additional insights into ways

to predict wayfinding performance using space syntax methods. We complemented an

assessment of environmental characteristics with assessments of individual differences. The

combination of both environmental and individual characteristics may provide a more accurate

understanding of wayfinding behaviors in buildings.

Methods

In this section, we describe the design of the behavioral study for assessing wayfinding

performance in the library. Results will be presented in the following section together with

results of our space syntax analyses.

Participants

Considering that an individual’s familiarity with an environment might contribute to

wayfinding performance in that environment, two groups of participants with different

familiarity levels were recruited for the study. Four students who had visited the library at the

beginning of the semester formed a group of participants with limited familiarity; a second group

with four students who had never been to the library formed a group with no familiarity.

Environment

The study was designed to assess participant’s wayfinding behaviors in areas with

different environmental characteristics. Three wings of the main library were selected: Paterno


Library, Central Stacks, and West Pattee Library. There are two interesting characteristics of the

three areas: they are only connected on the first floor. Within each area the number of floors was

totally different. The floor plans of the main library are illustrated in Figure 1.

(Insert Figure 1 approximately here)

Materials and procedures

The experiment was done with one participant at a time. Each participant met the

experimenter at the lending services desk on the first floor of Pattee Library, and the experiment

began when the participant gave his/her consent. First, the participant was asked to locate two

books in Paterno Library, starting from the lending services desk. The two books were shelved

on two different floors (2nd and 5th).When a participant had found these two books, he/she was

asked to estimate in which direction lay the lending services desk.

Once the tasks in Paterno Library were finished, the participant was given a second task

of locating two books in the Central Stacks, again on two different floors (1A and 2A). Upon

finishing this task, the participant was again asked to estimate the direction back to the same

lending services desk, and then given a final task of locating two more books in West Pattee

Library. Each participant was told to use whatever information he/she could find in the library to

help locate the books. The experimenter followed each participant in a medium distance to give

each participant a feeling of freedom in making wayfinding decisions. A Sony HandyCam video

camera was used to record the entire wayfinding process.

When all three book-locating tasks were completed, the participant was led to a quiet

study area in the library to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions not

only about the participant’s personal information but also how the participant rated their own


sense of direction. The Santa Barbara Sense of Direction Scale (Hegarty et al., 2002) was used.

The completion of the questionnaire marked the end of the experiment.

Results

Formal Descriptions of Environments

Wayfinding in the library was not limited to just walking along the hallway. Within each

library area, participants also had to explore the aisles created by the stacks arrangement. To

analyze participants’ wayfinding behavior, locations of books, shapes of bookshelves, and the

library floor plans were digitized. This allowed for quantitatively characterizing the environment

using space syntax methods.

We employed certain space syntax methods in this study to assess the factors of buildings

which potentially influence wayfinding behaviors. Thus we have organized this section into

paragraphs about each of the three environmental aspects we focused on in this study: visibility,

layout complexity, and connectivity. It is important to note that current space syntax methods do

not cover signage, so a discussion of signage will be included separately in the Discussion

section.

Visibility. The open-source software Depthmap (Turner, 2004) was used to carry out a

systematic analysis of the visual access (visibility) of the three library areas. One major

component of Depthmap, visibility graph analysis (VGA), provides comprehensive analysis of

the visual access of an entire floor regarding all accessible locations.

Examples of visual access on library floors are presented in Figure 2. Results of VGA for

Central Stacks 1A show very poor visibility for the entire area with few exceptions. In contrast,


results for Paterno Library fifth floor (5F) show good visibility except for areas between

bookshelves. West Pattee third floor (3F) showed similar visibility as Paterno Library. Based on

the introduction of visibility above, these differences in visibility among the Central Stacks,

Paterno Library and West Pattee potentially lead to different wayfinding performance.


Layout complexity. The layout complexity of the library areas was assessed by the inter

connection density method (ICD). ICD measures calculate the density (number) of direct

connections between intersections (decision points) in a floor plan of a building as a way to

assess a floor’s layout complexity. In our study, density is calculated by dividing the total

number of connections (which is the sum of all connections at all intersections) by the total

number of intersections. ICD, therefore, is a global measure of complexity that disregards

individual decision points. For examples, see Figure 3, which shows the nodes and connectivity

between nodes on Central Stacks 1A, Paterno 5F, and West Pattee 3F. The ICD value of each

floor is also shown. Since we considered the actual location of all book shelves in this

assessment, we calculated the ICD based on all bookshelves and alleyways (not just the main

path). only the alleyways in the library were considered. Our ICD results seem to correlate

negatively with our VGA results in that low visibility areas seem to have higher layout

complexity. It is thus reasonable to assume that a complex layout may lead to poor visibility.


Connectivity. Connectivity, revealed in axial maps, was originally used to represent street

networks in a less complex way. An axial map “[is] the least set of lines which pass through each

convex space and makes all axial links'' (Hillier and Hanson, 1984, p91-92). These lines which


can be treated as paths (which can be possibly chosen as routes) are called axial lines. Figure 4

shows the axial maps of the three library areas. The results of the axial map assessment show that

areas of higher visibility tend to have higher connectivity and lower layout complexity, and vice

versa.


Wayfinding Performance

Wayfinding time. Participants performed differently with respect to time spent in each book

locating task (Table 1). First of all, participants with different levels of familiarity showed

varying performance. It was not surprising to see that participants with limited experience spent

less time than participants with no experience to locate books in Paterno Library and West

Pattee. It is surprising, however, that both groups of participants spent the most time overall, and

almost the same time as each other, to locate books in the Central Stacks. These results show that

wayfinding behaviors are related not only to the wayfinder’s familiarity but potentially also to

the physical structures of the buildings. Regardless of familiarity, participants tended to spend

more time at areas whose visibility and connectivity were low and whose layout complexity was

high.

(Insert table 1 approximately here)

Extra walking distances. In general, the more time a participant spent in a library looking for

books, the more distance he/she walked. The captured videos helped the authors to trace each

participant’s route and calculate the extra distance they walked, by subtracting the shortest

distance to locate a book from the actually walked distance (Table 2). It is surprising again to see

that both groups of participants covered more distance in the Central Stacks, which according to


our previous results, was shown out all three library areas to have the highest layout complexity,

lowest visibility, and lowest connectivity.


Correlation between sense of direction and wayfinding performance. We found a correlation

between the length of extra walking distance and participants’ self-rating of sense of direction.

This correlation indicated that the higher that participants rated themselves, the better the

wayfinding performance they actually had, that is, they walked fewer extra routes. This implies

that if a patron has a good sense of direction, he or she might show better wayfinding

performance particularly in buildings with lower layout complexity, higher visibility, and higher

connectivity.

Pointing errors. The pointing errors made by each participant in all three library areas are shown

in Table 3. These data show a similar pattern compared to time spent and extra distance walked

in each library area. Both groups of participants had similar and higher pointing errors in the

Central Stacks as compared to all their pointing errors in the two other library areas. However,

the pointing errors differ greatly between groups in Paterno Library and West Pattee. It seems

that in areas with low visibility, low connectivity, and high layout complexity, familiarity did not

influence direction pointing performance as much as environmental characteristics did.


Route patterns. The routes walked by participants showed very distinct patterns. In the Central

Stacks, no participant walked directly toward the location of the books. Instead, routes showed

many detours and turns. The visibility and connectivity in the Central Stacks is the lowest and


the layout complexity is the highest among all three library areas. It certainly can be considered

the most difficult part of the library in which to orient oneself. In the other two library areas,

participants walked toward the correct general location of the books, even though they had some

difficulty locating the book at the local scale (at the actual shelf, where participants were mostly

influenced by signage). Figure 5 shows the maps of all routes walked by all participants in the

three library areas. In the following paragraph, we elaborate on the impact of signage on

wayfinding performance.

(Insert figure 5 approximately here)

Signs. We found that the routes walked in Paterno Library were influenced by the signs present

in that environment. Routes on just the 5th floor of Paterno Library showed that most participants

bypassed the correct location of the book and went to a different bookshelf. We think this is due

to inconsistency between the signs provided in the library, and the information participants found

in the online library catalog. At this location, participants were looking for a picture book;

picture books are part of the larger juvenile collection. Yet the catalog only indicated “Juvenile”;

participants went directly to the bookshelf marked “Juvenile” instead of going to the bookshelf

marked “Picture Books”. This finding not only demonstrates the importance of signage in

libraries (Carr, 2006), but also shows the problems created by inconsistencies between the

organization in the online catalog and the physical organization of books on a shelf.

Discussion

Role of Visibility

Locations where participants made wrong turns or hesitated to make wayfinding

decisions had very low visibility. For example, at each entrance to the Central Stacks,


participants could not see much information about the floor layout. Furthermore, no additional

information was provided at these locations to give participants descriptions of collections on

this floor. It was apparent that participants had difficulties at these points to make wayfinding

decisions, which lengthened their time spent looking for books, and caused them to make detours

to reach their destination. All participants encountered these difficulties in the Central Stacks

independent of their familiarity.

In West Pattee and Paterno Libraries, it appears that wayfinding difficulty was not as

closely related to the environment as in the Central Stacks. First, the visibility of two areas is

better than in the Central Stacks. Second, participants of the two groups showed varying

wayfinding performance in the two areas. Here, familiarity seemed to play a more important role

in explaining wayfinding difficulties than in less complex environments.

Role of Layout Complexity

Layout complexity was inversely related to visibility and connectivity in this study; areas

with high layout complexity had low visibility and low connectivity. Layout complexity showed

slight differences in its relation to wayfinding performance as compared to visibility. First,

layout complexity seemed to correlate with the time participants spent in each area. Regardless

of familiarity, participants spent the most time where layout complexity was highest. Second,

pointing errors did not represent a simple relationship with just visibility, but also depended upon

layout complexity (which further depended on participants’ familiarity). To participants who had

limited familiarity, the areas with the highest visibility were related to the smallest pointing

errors. To participants with no familiarity, the areas of the highest layout complexity were related

to the largest pointing errors.


Layout Complexity vs. Familiarity

Analysis of layout complexity against familiarity revealed an interesting pattern across

the three library areas. The time spent by participants was longer and the distances walked were

longer in areas where layout complexity was higher (in the Central Stacks). The pointing errors

also implied that areas of higher layout complexity add more difficulties to pointing tasks. Hence

the layout complexity played a much more important role than the familiarity in this area.

However, in Paterno West Pattee, where layout complexity was lower, individual familiarity

with the environment played a more important role than layout complexity. This finding is in

contrast to earlier suggestions that familiarity plays a more important role than layout complexity

in wayfinding performance (O'Neill, 1992). Further assessments are necessary to clarify the

different levels of impact of layout complexity and familiarity on wayfinding performance.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that wayfinding behaviors can be correlated with both

characteristics of physical environments and individual differences. Methods of space syntax are

effective in quantifying certain aspects of physical environments and relating them to human

wayfinding behaviors. This can provide valuable insight for designing and improving wayfinding

systems in libraries, and for assessing potentially problematic areas without the need to perform

user studies.

The major finding in this study is the confirmation of the relationship between aspects of

environments (i.e. visibility, connectivity, and layout complexity) and human wayfinding

behaviors. More importantly, this study investigated factors of physical environments in libraries

that impact wayfinding behaviors. Previous studies pointed out the potential relations of choices


of places in buildings and visibility (Wiener and Franz, 2004). We used three different space

syntax methods to address different aspects of buildings.

Furthermore, wayfinding difficulties are due not only to the environment but also to the

familiarity of the wayfinder with that environment. We suggest that both environment and

familiarity have different weights on influencing wayfinding performance. The layout

complexity of an environment may be the most influential factor of wayfinding behaviors1.

When an environment has a very high layout complexity, all wayfinders have great wayfinding

difficulties regardless their familiarity. However, when the environment is less complex, the

familiarity of the environment is then the major factor impacting wayfinding performance. This

current study presents the different wayfinding performance in libraries such as the time spent

and the extra distance walked in relation to layout complexity.

For revealing and predicting wayfinding problems that exist in libraries, it is beneficial to

combine methods that address both the quantitative assessment of physical environments and

allow for evaluating individual behaviors. Similar studies also showed the effectiveness of using

tools of spatial science to understand wayfinding behaviors (Mandel, 2010). Slightly different

from Mandel’s study, which only considered the entry areas of a library, we addressed the areas

where patrons have the most difficulties—areas where books are shelved—to reveal the

wayfinding difficulties resulting from different aspects of the environment.

In general, findings of this study indicate that the design of wayfinding systems for

library users should be tailored to the specific characteristics of areas. For example, the Central

Stacks in this study need more facilitation of user navigation such as maps and signs, due to its

1 The layout complexity in this study is associated with visibility and connectivity. Here we use high layout complexity to indicate low visibility and connectivity in library areas.


low visibility, low connectivity, and high layout complexity. Only when wayfinding systems are

designed for and implemented at the locations where wayfinding difficulties begin, such as the

entrance to each floor of the Central Stacks, can wayfinding problemsbe limited. This study

signifies the future research of designing tailored wayfinding systems, and extending the

application of this research from libraries to other public buildings should be of high priority.

References

Bafna, S. 2003. Space syntax: A brief Introduction to its logic and analytical techniques. Environment and Behavior 35 (1):17-28.

Benedikt, M. L. 1979. To take hold of space: isovists and isovist fields. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 6 (1):47-65.

Carr, A. R. 2006. An Experiment with Art Library Users, Signs, and Wayfinding, Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.

Davies, C., and D. Peebles. 2010. Spaces or scenes: Map-based orientation in urban environments. Spatial Cognition & Computation 10 (2):135-156.

Evans, G. W., M. A. Skorpanich, T. Gärling, K. J. Bryant, and B. Bresolin. 1984. The effects of pathway configuration, landmarks and stress on environmental cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology 4 (4):323-335.

Gärling, T., E. Lindberg, and T. Mäntylä. 1983. Orientation in buildings: effects of familiarity, visual access, and orientation aids. Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (1):177-86.

Hegarty, M., A. E. Richardson, D. R. Montello, K. L. Lovelace, and I. Subbiah. 2002. Development of a self-report measure of environmental spatial ability. Intelligence 30:425-447.

Hillier, B., and J. Hanson. 1984. The social logic of space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hölscher, C., M. Brösamle, and G. Vrachliotis. 2006. Challenges in Multi-level Wayfinding: A Case-study with Space Syntax Technique. Paper read at Spatial Cognition '06 Space Syntax and Spatial Cognition Workshop, at Breman, Germany.

Klippel, A., C. Freksa, and S. Winter. 2006. The danger of getting lost-YAH maps in emergencies. Journal of Spatial Sciences 51 (1):117-131.

Levine, M. 1982. You-are-here maps psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior 14 (2):221-237.

Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Mandel, Lauren H. 2010. Toward an understanding of library patron wayfinding: Observing

patrons' entry routes in a public library. Library & Information Science Research 32 (2):116-130.

Meilinger, T., C. Hölscher, S. J. Büchner, and M. Brösamle. 2007. How Much Information Do You Need? Schematic Maps in Wayfinding and Self Localisation. In Spatial Cognition V: Reasoning, Action, Interaction, edited by T. Barkowsky, M. Knauff, G. Ligozat and D. R. Montello. Berling, Heidelberg: Springer.


O'Neill, M. J. 1991. Evaluation of a conceptual model of architectual legibility. Environment and Behavior 23 (3):259-284.

O'Neill, M. J. 1992. Effects of familiarity and plan complexity on wayfinding in simulated buildings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12 (4):319-327.

Penn, A. 2003. Space Syntax And Spatial Cognition: Or Why the Axial Line? Environment and Behavior 35 (1):30-65.

Shepard, R.N., and S. Hurwitz. 1984. Upward direction, mental rotation, and discrimination of left and right turns in maps. Cognition 18 (1-3):161-193.

Strube, G. 1992. The Role of Cognitive Science in Knowledge Engineering. In Contemporary knowledge engineering and cognition, Proceedings of the First Joint Workshop on Contemporary Knowledge Engineering and Cognition. London: Springer-Verlag.

Turner, A. 2004. Depthmap 4, A Researcher'sa Handbook. London, UK: Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College of London.

Turner, A., M. Doxa, D. O'Sullivan, and A. Penn. 2001. From isovists to visibility graph: A methodology for the analysis of architecture space. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28 (1):103-121.

Warren, D.H., and T.E. Scott. 1993. Map alignment in traveling multisegment routes. Environment and Behavior 25 (4):643.

Wiener, J. M., and G. Franz. 2004. Isovists as a means to predict spatial experience and behavior. In Spatial Cognition IV: Reasoning, Action, and Interaction, Lecture Notes of Artificial Intelligence edited by C. Freksa, M. Knauff, B. Krieg-Brückner, B. Nebel and T. Barkowsky. Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.


FIGURES

Figure 1. Floor plans of the main library. The three wings, West Pattee, Central Stacks, and

Paterno Library, are only connected on the first floor. (Courtesy of The Pattee and Paterno

Libraries of The Pennsylvania State University)


Figure 2. Output of visibility graph analysis. From the top to bottom: Central Stacks has very

poor visibility while Paterno Library and West Pattee have good visibility.


Figure 3. Results of inter connection density (ICD) calculations. Central Stacks has the highest

layout complexity while Paterno Library and West Pattee have lower layout complexity.


Figure 4. Output of axial maps. Central Stacks has very poor connectivity while Paterno Library

and West Pattee have better connectivity.


Figure 5. Routes walked by participants in different libraries.


TABLES

Table 1. Average time spent in each library area by group (mins).

Group Paterno Library Central Stacks West Pattee

Limited experience 9.80 14.08 7.96

No experience 16.66 14.30 13.38


Table 2. Extra distances walked in each library area by group and length of shortest paths.

Group Paterno Library (m)

Central Stacks (m) West Pattee (m)


No experience 179.45 217.60 142.07

Shortest path 94.96 29.71 58.25


Table 3. Average pointing errors in each library area by group

Group

Paterno Library (o) Central Stacks (o) West Pattee (o)


No experience 78.75 75.00 95.00

Documents

WAYFINDING IN LIBRARIES: CAN PROBLEMS BE … · To recap, space syntax provides quantitative descriptions of built environments based on their configurational information, and potentially