This research compared the effectiveness and performance of interactive visualizations of the GIS&T Body of Knowledge 1. The visualizations were created using Processing, and display the structure and content of the Body of Knowledge using various spatial layout methods: the Indented List, Tree Graph, treemap and Similarity Graph. The first three methods utilize the existing hierarchical structure of the BoK text, while the fourth method (Similarity Graph) serves as a jumping off point for exploring content-based visualizations of the BoK. The following questions have guided the framework of this research: (1) Which of the spatial layouts is most effective for completing tasks related to the GIS&T BoK overall? How do they compare to each other in terms of performance? (2) Is one spatial layout significantly more or less effective than others for completing a particular cognitive task? (3) Is the user able to utilize the BoK as a basemap or reference system and make inferences based on BoK scorecard overlays? (4) Which design aspects of the interface assist in carrying out the survey objectives? Which design aspects of the application detract from fulfilling the objectives? To answer these questions, human subjects were recruited to participate in a survey, during which they were assigned a random spatial layout and were asked questions about the BoK based on their interaction with the visualization tool. 75 users were tested, 25 for each spatial layout. Statistical analysis revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between means for overall accuracy when comparing the three visualizations. In looking at individual questions, Tree Graph and Indented List yielded statistically significant higher scores for questions regarding the structure of the Body of Knowledge, as compared to the treemap. There was a significant strong positive correlation between the time taken to complete the survey and the final survey score. This correlation was particularly strong with treemap, possibly confirming the steeper learning curve with the more complex layout. Users were asked for feedback on the perceived "ease" of using the interface, and though few users said the interface was easy to use, there was a positive correlation between perceived "ease" and overall score. Qualitative feedback revealed that the external controls on the interface were not inviting to use, and the interface overall was not intuitive. Additional human subjects were recruited from the professional GIS community to participate in testing remotely. These results weren't significant due to small sample size, but helped to verify the feedback and results from the controlled testing. Although few of the results obtained in this study were statistically significant, it has revealed opportunities to improve upon this interface in future iterations of the BoKVis, in addition to opening the door to content-based visualization of the BoK.