Route preview performs comparably to turn-by-turn navigation across key metrics including navigation errors, phone glances, and spatial learning, and when enhanced with targeted improvements could better serve diverse pedestrian needs than current TBT-dominant interfaces.
Key Findings
Results
A substantial proportion of users prefer route preview over turn-by-turn navigation, particularly in familiar environments.
Survey sample was n=222 users.
44% of respondents prefer route preview (RP) despite its limited features.
Preference for RP rose to 76% in familiar environments.
This preference exists despite RP lacking real-time guidance features present in turn-by-turn (TBT) navigation.
Results
Route preview and turn-by-turn navigation showed no significant differences in navigation errors, phone glances, or spatial learning during actual navigation performance.
Navigation performance study had a sample of n=195 participants.
No significant differences were found between modes across key metrics: navigation errors, phone glances, and spatial learning.
RP was 'on par and even better for some key metrics' compared to TBT.
This was Study 2 of the three-study mixed-methods approach.
Results
A co-design workshop identified priority enhancements for route preview navigation.
Study 3 was a co-design workshop with n=5 participants.
Priority enhancements identified included landmark integration, intention-based routing, and subtle orientation aids.
These enhancements were identified as ways to better serve diverse pedestrian needs.
Discussion
Route preview provides cognitive engagement benefits and user autonomy that are not present in turn-by-turn navigation.
The findings challenge the assumption that TBT represents optimal pedestrian navigation design.
RP was characterized as offering 'cognitive engagement benefits and user autonomy' despite fewer features.
TBT was described as a paradigm 'originally designed for vehicular navigation' that has been applied to pedestrians.
Many users 'actively choose' the simpler RP mode in current navigation apps.
Methods
The research employed a three-study mixed-methods approach combining survey, experimental performance comparison, and co-design methods.
Study 1 was a user preference survey (n=222).
Study 2 compared actual navigation performance (n=195).
Study 3 was a co-design workshop (n=5).
The approach was designed to investigate whether RP could serve as an effective alternative to TBT for pedestrian navigation.
Savino G, de Bellis E, Kirkham R, Schöning J. (2026). Evaluating route preview as an alternative to turn-by-turn navigation in pedestrian mobility.. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0340711