WELLS

& ASSOCIATES, LLP UX REPORTING

Usability Report: Google Maps and MapQuest

Executive Summary
Purpose of the study
Participants
Method
Findings and recommendations
Conclusion



1. Executive Summary

This studied aims to compare the usability between two major mapping clients,
Google Maps and MapQuest by analyzing the users’ ability to each mapping client to
obtain directions from one location to another. These tests were conducted on
October 9, 2018 by a student attending East Stroudsburg University. By completing
a series of tasks, the student found that Google Maps was in fact the better mapping
client due to its simpler and more intuitive user interface and its absence of
bothersome ads.

2. Purpose of the Study

The purupose of this study is to compare two mapping clients, Google Maps and
MapQuest, in terms of their usability. By the end of this study, the researchers
intend to have a better understanding of the pros and the cons of each mapping
client. Specific attention will be paid to the simplicity and accessibility of the user
interface and the quality of information provided on each site.

3. Participants

The sole participant in this study was contacted by email from the researcher. Chad
Counterman is a twenty three-year old fifth year student at East Stroudsburg
University studying Mathematics with a concentration in finance. He is self-
described as advanced in personal computing. Currently, Chad works full-time as a
server at Barley Creek Brewing Company and is also a full-time student in his final
semester. After college, he intends to practice toward becoming an actuary.

4. Method

This study was completed using a late-2014 edition MacBook Air running on macOS
High Sierra version 10.13.6. The browser used to conduct this study was Brave
version 0.25.2. Brave is a web browser designed to limit and control the ad content
that publishers are able to force upon users. The network connection speed was

Adapted from http://www.indiana.edu/~usable/templates/Report_temp.htm P. 1

WELLS & ASSOCIATES, LLP UX REPORTING

strong and uninterrupted throughout the study. For the purpose of comparing each
mapping client, the participant used one browser window with two tabs open.

The participant was given three concise tasks. The first task asked the participant to
map the route from their home to East Stroudsburg University using each client,
verbally detailing each step they take to do so, recording the number of clicks
necessary, and recording the length of time to complete each the task. The
participant was then asked to reverse the route and talk through each step and the
number clicks to complete that step. At last, the participant was asked to note the
differences in the routes and any issues encountered during this task.

The second task was to map a route using each mapping client from East
Stroudsburg University to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland & Labrador,
Canada. The participant was asked to note each step in mapping their route
including the number of clicks and how much time it took while also verbally
detailing his actions. The participant was then asked to add a stop along the way in
Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada. The stop should be after leaving East Stroudsburg
University and before Arriving in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. At last, the participant
was asked to add a final stop in Stephenville, Newfoundland & Labrador, Canada.
The participant would then talk through any issues encountered with either of the
mapping clients.

The third and final task was to map a walking route from East Stroudsburg
University to Yetter Park. The particpant would then be asked to analyze each
possible route offered by the mapping clients and determine the optimal route. After
comparing the routes on each mapping client, the participant would talk through
any issues encountered during this task.

5. Findings and Recommendations

After completing each task, the participant’s reflection on each of the two mapping
clients was examined. The participant found that overall, Google Maps was the
superior mapping client. The participant in the study believes Google maps is
superior because it has a simpler and more accessible user interface, absence of
bothersome ads, includes directions to parks (including walking paths that are not
accessible to automobiles), includes directions to islands (in this study, this involves
getting on a ferry), and provides warnings for what the user could expect on their
trip (tolls, change in time zones, leaving the country, includes a ferry).

MapQuest did offer some features that Google Maps did not. MapQuest’s directions
seemed to be more detailed. In the first task, the participant found simple directions
that included statements such as “If you reach Normal St you’ve gone a little to far.”
On the other hand, Google Maps seemed to offer more practical routes for traveling
across town. In the first task, Google Maps offered three routes to go from
Chipperfield Drive in Stroudsburg to East Stroudsburg University, whereas
MapQuest only offered two. Also, MapQuest’s first route was not one of the three

Adapted from http://www.indiana.edu/~usable/templates/Report_temp.htm P. 2

WELLS & ASSOCIATES, LLP UX REPORTING

routes suggested by Google Maps. MapQuest’s first route suggests driving down
Main Street in Stroudsburg to get to East Stroudsburg University, which has many
stop lights and tends to have heavy traffic. Google Maps’ routes by default had
avoided these routes.

Google Maps also had walking paths mapped out to get from East Stroudsburg
University to Yetter Park. MapQuest, however, did not have walking paths mapped
out and did not have Yetter Park on the map at all making it moderately frustrating
and difficult for the user to find their way.

Another downfall for MapQuest was its presence of bothersome ads. Across the
center of the screen was an everpresent ad client to help the user find access to
hotels, car rentals, grocery stores, entertainment, gas stations, and more. The
participant in the study did find a way to move the ad bar closer to the top of the
screen, but it could not hide it from the screen. Google Maps did not appear to have
any bothersome ad presence. This may be a result of the browser or the mapping
client itself.

Overall, navigating each website proved to be simple but Google Maps was far
superior of a mapping client than MapQuest.


6. Conclusion

This study aimed to compare the usability of two mapping clients, Google Maps and
MapQuest. The study found that by almost all accounts, Google Maps was a superior
mapping client than MapQuest.

Adapted from http://www.indiana.edu/~usable/templates/Report_temp.htm P. 3