Worldwide, 2.7 billion people live in areas where earthquakes, provoking at least slight damage, have to be expected regularly. As earthquakes cannot be predicted, knowing and understanding seismic hazard is a major step towards loss reduction. Seismological services around the globe acquire, analyze and provide seismic hazard data needed for this purpose. A common means to communicate their results are maps. Up to now seismic hazard maps were mainly tailored to the requirements of primary users, such as civil engineers, but likewise used to communicate with the public. Even though maps are an established way to illustrate hazards, there is evidence that they are often misconceived. Color settings, textual characteristics, the conceptualization of legends as well as the manner of presentation have shown to influence the comprehensibility of seismic hazard maps. Based on a real case, using the material the Swiss Seismological Service at ETH Zurich provides, this study analyzes how seismic hazard maps and aligned information are read and understood by non-primary users. To this aim, a representative online survey with the Swiss population (N=491) and two workshops with engineers and architects not specialized in seismic retrofitting (N=23) were conducted. The results show that despite following best practice recommendations for the presentation of seismic hazard information, its understanding remains challenging. Whereas most participants are able to distinguish hazardous from less hazardous areas, correctly interpreting detailed results and identifying the most adequate set of information to answer a given question have shown to be demanding. Participants with higher numeracy skills or those, who rate the information provided superior, have a better understanding of the seismic hazard in Switzerland. Further, the higher participants perceive seismic risk and the more their risk perception has increased in the course of the survey, the more accurately they interpret the statistical information provided. Participants’ risk perception and its alternation also positively influence their willingness to take precautionary measures. The interactive map setting, offered to explore the seismic hazard model, and tested at the workshops, has no detectable positive effect on comprehensibility. It is reasoned that it cannot cope with popular, commercial mapping tools.