Mapping Democracy: An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Election Maps
Contribution
Design and execution of a combined eye-tracking and think-aloud evaluation protocol tailored to interactive election maps, enabling synchronized analysis of visual attention and verbalized interpretation strategies.
Application of the analytic–holistic cognitive style framework, operationalized via the Compound Figure Test (CFT), to differentiate patterns of map interaction and visual processing in an electoral visualization context.
Construction of a task-based experimental paradigm using a curated set of real-world election maps from multiple media sources to examine comprehension across heterogeneous interface designs.
Integration of region-of-interest (AOI) timelines and sequence visualizations with standard eye-tracking metrics to support comparative analysis between cognitive style groups.
Publication properties
Citation
Popelka, S., Dorusakova, J., Vanicek, T., & Vojtechovska, M. (2025). Mapping Democracy: An Eye-Tracking Analysis of Election Maps. Proceedings of the 2025 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, 6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715669.3725865
Authors
S. Popelka, J. Dorusakova, T. Vanicek, M. Vojtechovska
Year
2025
Journal
Proceedings of the 2025 Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications
Language
EN
Abstract
Questions addressed
Q: What role do election maps play in shaping public understanding of democratic outcomes?
A: Election maps translate complex electoral data into spatial form, influencing how results, margins, and power distributions are perceived. Design choices such as aggregation level, symbolization, and interaction strongly affect interpretation, especially for non-expert audiences.
Q: How can eye-tracking be used to evaluate the usability of interactive election maps?
A: Eye-tracking reveals how users allocate visual attention across map elements such as legends, buttons, summaries, and data layers. Fixation sequences and timing provide evidence of which components attract attention, remain unnoticed, or cause confusion during interpretation tasks.
Q: What are analytic and holistic cognitive styles in the context of map reading?
A: Analytic cognitive style emphasizes detailed, component-focused processing, while holistic cognitive style prioritizes global structure and overall patterns. Differences in style can lead to distinct interaction strategies, such as varied reliance on legends, faster task completion, or differing exploration paths.
Q: Why are cartograms and correlation graphs frequently misinterpreted by map readers?
A: Cartograms distort geographic shape or area to encode non-spatial variables, which can conflict with learned expectations of geographic maps. Correlation graphs require statistical literacy to interpret axes and relationships, making both formats prone to misunderstanding without sufficient cartographic or data education.
Q: What methodological value does combining eye-tracking with think-aloud protocols provide?
A: Eye-tracking captures where and when visual attention occurs, while think-aloud protocols reveal reasoning and interpretation strategies. The combination links observed gaze behavior with cognitive explanations, supporting deeper analysis of map comprehension processes.
Q: Which design factors most commonly hinder comprehension in interactive election maps?
A: Poorly labeled controls, visually inconspicuous interaction elements, and competing focal areas can prevent users from discovering key functionality. Inadequate prioritization of legends, summaries, or temporal controls further increases cognitive load and risk of misinterpretation.