The aim of the work is identify the differences between orthophotomaps and conventional maps by using eye-tracking tests.

The theoretical part contains the current state of the literature search of orthophotos and eye-tracking. Practical work includes creating eye-tracking tests to identify differences in reading orthophotos and conventional maps, testing the respondents, evaluation of eye-tracking tests and visualization of test results and informations. End of practical part contains a synthesis of all the results of the experiment and the subsequent recommendations for the use of conventional maps and orthophotos in various parts of human activity. Differences in reading both types of maps are found by using eye-tracking testing. The test contained 20 stimuli consisting of orthophoto map section and conventional map section. Stimuli were divided into three groups - Posititon, Veget and Trans. Position is aimed at positioning objects, Veget - resolution of vegetation and section Trans - searching transport links. ET metrics such as Dwell time, Fixation count, number of answers on orthophoto maps or conventional maps and the accuracy of answers. After evaluating these metrics monitored in each group and in whole test, we can say that conventional maps provide a better environment for users to orientation than orthophoto maps.