Familiarity drives task performance, but the augmented reality view is what participants remembered fondly.
When two interfaces both get users to the destination, the interesting question is not which one is better. It is which one people will open next time.
The Taiwan study found a clean split. The 2D map produced faster task completion and higher pragmatic scores. The AR view produced higher hedonic scores and a higher overall rating. Same data, same participants, opposite conclusions depending on which measure you trust.
Participants described the map as familiar. They already knew how to read a blue dot, a route line, and a list of turn instructions, and that fluency showed up in the times. The AR interface asked for a new kind of reading, where you match what the camera shows against what the overlay says.
The AR view had an advantage the stopwatch could not capture. Putting digital labels directly onto the real street removes the mental step of translating an abstract map into what you see in front of you. Participants rated that immediacy highly.
There is a limit to how far the findings travel. Ten participants, all students, in one district of one city, all using their own phones. The authors report small differences in task time and call the two interfaces close on usability. Treat the numbers as a signal, not a verdict.
Brata and Liang (2020). Comparative study of user experience on mobile pedestrian navigation between digital map interface and location-based augmented reality. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
