Wayfinding on Campus: Evaluating Google Maps vs. Citymapper

Abstract

This project compares the usage and user experience of Google Maps and Citymapper among students between École Polytechnique and Telecom Paris. By analyzing satisfaction, usage patterns, and navigation strategies, the study aims to explore how these apps simulate wayfinding in real life and evaluate their potential to assist users in navigating the campus effectively. The study incorporates surveys and real-life scenarios to evaluate app effectiveness and user preferences. Instead of eye-tracking, we utilized methods like screen recording participants using the application, especially first-time users, across various scenarios and simulations. Participants provided feedback on their experiences, highlighting any issues they encountered. Additionally, we simulated app usage outside of the campus environment to test its accuracy and functionality in real-life conditions.

We also conducted a survey to reach a broader audience, asking participants about their app preferences, the scenarios in which they would use one app over another, and the factors influencing these decisions. This helped capture perspectives from individuals who couldn’t participate in the screen-recording simulations.

 There are currently many different apps for wayfinding (google maps, Waze, city mapper, etc.) which have some common approaches and also different ways of showing people how to find their destination. It would be interesting to do a comparison of how people use those apps.

Introduction

Overview of the system

Navigation and wayfinding apps are essential tools for modern urban mobility, helping users find the most efficient routes between locations. Among these, Google Maps and Citymapper are two widely used applications. Google Maps, developed by Google, provides a comprehensive navigation system that includes driving, walking, cycling, and public transit directions. Citymapper, a transit-focused app, is designed specifically for public transportation users, offering real-time updates and multi-modal travel options.

Our study analyzes these two apps in the context of Institut Polytechnique de Paris (IPP) campuses, specifically École Polytechnique and Télécom Paris. The goal is to understand how students and visitors use these applications to navigate within, to, and from the campus, identifying differences in user experience, usability, and navigation strategies.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficiency and usability of Google Maps and Citymapper in a campus environment, where both pedestrian and transit navigation are crucial. By evaluating these applications, we aim to answer key questions about:

• App choice factors: What makes users prefer one app over the other?
• Scenario-based performance: When is one app more effective than the other?
• Usability issues: What challenges do users face when using these apps on campus?
• First-time user experience: How do newcomers adapt to each application?
• Improvements: What features could enhance user experience for campus navigation?

Target Audience

This study is designed for a range of users who rely on navigation apps for different needs. Students are frequent users, depending on these apps for daily commutes and navigating within the campus efficiently. Visitors, including prospective students and guests, need accurate wayfinding assistance as they are unfamiliar with the campus layout. Faculty and staff may also require navigation solutions for commuting and on-campus movement. Additionally, app developers and UX designers can benefit from this research by understanding usability challenges and identifying areas for improving wayfinding applications in campus environments.

Description of Google Maps and Citymapper

Google Maps, developed by Google, is a globally recognized navigation tool that provides real-time mapping, turn-by-turn navigation, and location-based services. It is designed for multiple transport modes, including driving, cycling, walking, and public transit. The app integrates extensive data, offering users broad geographical coverage and seamless navigation. While it is widely used and familiar to many, Google Maps can sometimes overwhelm users with excessive information and an overloaded interface. Additionally, it lacks pedestrian-specific optimizations, which can lead to inefficient campus navigation.

As for Citymapper, a navigation app designed specifically for public transit users, it offers a streamlined and transit-focused experience. The app provides real-time public transport updates, multi-modal travel suggestions, and clear comparisons between different transport routes. Citymapper’s strength lies in its ability to simplify route planning and present transit information in an intuitive way. However, its reliance on public transport makes it less effective for general wayfinding beyond transit-heavy areas. Users unfamiliar with the app may also face a learning curve when first using it.

Journey Maps Overview

To better understand user interaction with these applications, we created journey maps based on real-world navigation experiences. These maps highlight how users engage with the apps, including their expectations, emotions, and pain points throughout the journey.

Users expect Citymapper to provide fast, transit-based navigation with real-time updates. The app excels at delivering clear route selections, up-to-date transit schedules, and a simple interface, making it easy to use for frequent commuters. However, some users experience challenges when attempting to use Citymapper for pedestrian navigation, as the app is primarily designed for public transport. Occasional inaccuracies in transit delays can also lead to minor frustrations. Despite these drawbacks, most users report a stable and satisfactory experience due to its focus on transit efficiency.

Users rely on Google Maps for its broad coverage and multi-modal navigation. The app is particularly useful for finding detailed directions to specific locations and offers extensive data integration. However, the interface can sometimes feel cluttered, and the pedestrian navigation is not always optimized, leading to potential confusion. Users also report inconsistencies in transit recommendations, where route options may not always be the most efficient. As a result, the emotional experience of using Google Maps fluctuates, with users appreciating its comprehensive data while occasionally feeling frustrated by its usability challenges.

By analyzing these journey maps, we gained deeper insights into how users interact with these apps in a campus environment, revealing areas where improvements can enhance usability and efficiency.

Methodology

To evaluate the effectiveness and user experience of Google Maps and Citymapper in wayfinding on the IP Paris campuses, we employed a multi-faceted methodological approach. Our research included surveys, real-world navigation tests, case studies, and screen recordings. The primary objective was to assess how users interact with these two navigation applications, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and determine which app provides a more seamless navigation experience for students and visitors.

Target Audience

The study involved a total of 54 participants, consisting mainly of students and visitors within the age range of 18 to 34. The majority of participants (85.2%) were undergraduate students aged between 18 and 24, while 7.4% were master’s students or visitors between the ages of 25 and 34. The composition of the participants reflected a mix of international students (55%) and French residents (44%), highlighting differences in familiarity with local navigation routes. International students, being less acquainted with the campus and the surrounding area, were more reliant on wayfinding apps, whereas French residents had a natural advantage in terms of geographic awareness.

Data collection methods

To gather insights into user preferences and experiences, we designed and distributed structured surveys using Google Forms. These surveys allowed us to collect qualitative and quantitative data on navigation habits, app usability, and user satisfaction. Participants were asked to rate various aspects of their experience, including ease of use, accuracy of directions, and feature preferences.

In addition to surveys, we conducted real-world navigation tests to observe how participants interacted with Google Maps and Citymapper in actual wayfinding scenarios. Participants were assigned to use either Google Maps or Citymapper to reach a predetermined destination on the IP Paris campus. By comparing their experiences, we were able to examine variations in route accuracy, estimated travel time, and ease of use.

Case studies were another critical component of our methodology. We analyzed three specific cases to understand user behavior in different situations. In the first case, users who had never used Citymapper before were introduced to the app and asked to navigate with it. These users frequently reported confusion due to unfamiliar interface elements and tended to prefer Google Maps as a result. In contrast, participants in the second case study were already familiar with Citymapper and found it easy to use, efficiently reaching their destinations. Finally, the third case involved users navigating the same route at different time slots while alternating between Google Maps and Citymapper. This comparison helped us identify differences in the time taken to reach a location and assess how external factors such as real-time traffic and transit updates influenced route choices.

To supplement our findings, we employed screen recordings to capture participants’ interactions with both apps. These recordings provided valuable insights into navigation choices, the frequency of errors, and ease of app usage. By analyzing these recordings, we identified areas where users faced difficulties, such as incorrect transport schedules or inefficient route suggestions.

How we analyze the data?

Tο add a practical layer tο οur research, we set up real-life navigatiοn tests, a methοd highlighted in the cοurse as crucial fοr validating survey data. We measured navigatiοn efficiency, lοοking at travel times and accuracy οf directiοns wich reflects usability metrics such as effectiveness and efficiency. Watching participants mοve thrοugh the campus with their smartphοnes, we saw firsthand hοw each app’s design influenced the user jοurney, frοm the mοment they entered a destinatiοn tο the relief οf arriving οn time. Screen recοrdings prοvided a qualitative dimensiοn tο οur data, shοwing the subtleties οf hοw users interacted with each app. This apprοach was inspired by the cοurse’s lessοns οn behaviοral data analysis, demοnstrating hοw οbservatiοn can uncοver nuances that numbers alοne might miss.

Ethical considerations

Thrοughοut the prοject, we applied the ethical principles discussed in the Quant UX cοurse. Ensuring infοrmed cοnsent, anοnymizing data, and maintaining transparency with participants weren’t just ethical οbligatiοns—they were integral tο building trust and ensuring the validity οf οur findings. This apprοach reinfοrced the cοurse’s emphasis οn the impοrtance οf ethical practices in UX research.

going beyond the basics

We didn’t stοp at the basics. We asked deeper questiοns:

• Hοw dο first-time users adapt tο each app’s interface?
• Which features are mοst valuable when sοmeοne is in a rush?
• Hοw dο external factοrs, like weather οr campus crοwds, influence navigatiοn chοices?

These questiοns helped us mοve frοm simple data cοllectiοn tο develοping a deeper understanding οf user behaviοr and needs.

visualizing our findings

Our findings will be presented with visuals inspired by the cοurse’s fοcus οn data visualizatiοn. Expect tο see:

• Bar chart shοwing app preferences.
• Bοxplοts breaking dοwn navigatiοn times.
• User jοurney map illustrating the highs and lοws οf using each app.

These visuals will help us cοmmunicate οur insights effectively, making the data nοt just infοrmative but engaging.

Results

In order to present both results, one needs to understand the major difference of this analysis: it was a first time impression (Citymapper) vs an used to it impression (Google Map). On one of the first questions “Have you used navigation apps before” ~90% of the participants were used to navigation apps.

However, when asked “How often do you use Google Maps / Citymapper”, the result strikes !

Google Maps is well known by 84% of the subjects, while Citymapper is well known by 30%. On top of that, only 2 participants have never used Google Maps, while half of the subjects have never used Citymapper. 

Now that this point is stated, we’ll overview the results. One significant contrast between both apps is the ease of use: the proportion of 1-3 is 55% (Citymapper) vs 19% (Google Maps). Combined with the fact that Citymapper was new to half of the users, it means that not only were they not familiar with the interface but also their first impression might be influenced by the hardness of use.

Citymapper seems not to be intuitive to use and Google Maps seems to give more accurate routes: the proportion of 4-5 is 70% (Google Maps) vs 50% (Citymapper).

However, one key argument for Citymapper is that it has real-time information that Google Maps lacks ! When asked “Please describe your experience (positive or negative) using Google Maps. What worked well, and what could have been better?” participants stated this:

On the contrary, with the same question for Citymapper:

This last point resonates with this graph that displays “How important are the following features to you?”. The key takeaway is that real-time transit info is a major factor when comparing navigation apps.

That last point might have given Citymapper some advantages. However, new users struggling with Citymapper still saw Google Maps as the better option. It’s important to note that half of the participants were unfamiliar with Citymapper and were already accustomed to Google Maps’ interface, which significantly influenced this experiment.

Limitations

While our methodology provided valuable insights, some limitations must be acknowledged. External factors such as weather conditions, traffic congestion, and unexpected transit delays may have influenced navigation efficiency. Additionally, although 54 participants contributed to the study, a larger and more diverse sample could have provided a more comprehensive understanding of user experiences. Lastly, user familiarity bias played a role in our findings, as Google Maps was already widely known and frequently used by participants, which may have influenced their preferences.

By employing a comprehensive methodological approach that combined surveys, real-world navigation tests, case studies, and screen recordings, we were able to gain a deeper understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Google Maps and Citymapper. These findings provide valuable insights into user behavior and highlight areas where both applications can improve to enhance the navigation experience.

Interface comparison: Citymapper vs. Google Maps for the route from “Ferme de la Vauve” to “Polytechnique.”