Sprent, Crawshaw and Bartram – STRUCTURING TIMETABLE INFORMATION 1983

Description

This study compared two timetable formats: the common Standard layout (route vertical) and a less-used Reflected layout (route horizontal), each in Basic and Modified forms. 168 university students answered six representative timetable questions while timed. Results showed the Reflected format was superior after minimal practice: it yielded slightly longer times on the first question (non-significant) but significantly faster times on subsequent questions and produced fewer errors overall. Error analysis implicated scanning difficulties as the primary cause of Standard-format deficits—most misalignments and missed timing-point errors occurred with the long, narrow Standard matrices, whereas Reflected matrices produced fewer and more evenly distributed misalignments. Modifications intended to clarify logic (labelled axes, arrows, strip-maps) and aid scanning (grouping journeys, light tracing lines) had limited impact; the Standard Modified reduced errors but sometimes increased solution time, while tracing lines offered little benefit to student users. The authors conclude the Reflected format’s scanning advantages account for its better performance, though familiarity with conventions may influence first-time intelligibility.