Geohistory-Géohistoire Historical Geovisualization Online Learning from the Community June 20, 2016 Canadian Historical GIS Partnership Development Project Mid-term Conference Byron Moldofsky GIS and Cartography Office, Department of Geography Project Manager With contributions from Marcel Fortin Kevin Roy, RA, University of Toronto Map and Data Library James Clifford, collaborator , University of Saskatchewan Prinicipal Investigator Glenn Brauen, collaborator , University of Toronto at Scarborough University of Toronto
Share data from previous projects – especially “orphan data”
White Papers on Historical GIS methods (Year 1) The Canadian HGIS Partnership - Year 1: White Papers 1. Evolution of Historical GIS development in Canada 2. Survey/inventory/catalogue of Canadian HGIS datasets 3. Standards for historical Geospatial data, focusing on those for Research Data Management and Preservation 4. Historical GIS visualization methods: Existing and emerging, concentrating on web-mapping 5. Historical GIS Geoportal Development 6. Historical GIS Educational Impacts: HGIS in the Community and Classroom
Whitepaper: Historical GIS visualization/web-mapping 1. Descriptive overview of HGIS web-geovisualization landscape. Brief review of literature, discussion of best practices, few selected example websites 2. Classification of web geo -visualization technologies Types of technologies, and which are more or less suitable to different HGIS needs 3. Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: a) Standardized descriptive comparison of different methods b) Competitive analysis study rating different technologies for functionality and ease of use c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers 4. Developing analytical framework for HGIS web-visualization needs: What do we mean by this A way of analyzing the results of these investigations which will yield a set of principles we can apply to determine good practice, and make recommendations to users about how to meet their own goals.
2. Classification of web geo-visualization technologies Types of technologies, and which are more or less suitable to different HGIS needs Conceptual model: Figure 3. Roth's re-working of MacEachren’s “Cartography cube” (Roth 2013) Primarily presentation Primarily interaction
Classification of web geo-visualization technologies more or less suitable for HGIS (Draft version) Draft version
Technology category Web technology Web url Classification of web Data-Visualization Linked to Quadrigram www.quadrigram.com Map Palladio hdlab.stanford.edu/projects/palladio geo-visualization Tableau tableau.com technologies more Viewshare viewshare.org Dynamic Map-Centered ESRI Storymaps storymaps.arcgis.com or less suitable Presentations StoryMapJS storymap.knightlab.com for HGIS Kartograph www.kartograph.org Time-Enabled Map-Mounting Mapstory mapstory.org (Draft version) Services Google Earth API (Timeslider) developers.google.com/earth/documentatio n/time (deprecated) replaced by developers.google.com/kml/documentation/ time TimeMapper timemapper.okfnlabs.org Our selected Timemap.js code.google.com/p/timemap (Google map version of Simile timeline http://www.simile- set of widgets.org/timeline/ candidate Neatline neatline.org web-mapping Heurist heuristnetwork.org/ APIs: Exposing a Subset of Google Maps API developers.google.com/maps technologies Functionality for Web Map Bing Maps API www.bingmapsportal.com Mashups (generally built on Openlayers openlayers.org open libraries) Leaflet leafletjs.com D3 d3js.org Open Libraries: Supporting MapBox www.mapbox.com Client-Side Map Rendering Boundless (OpenGeo) boundlessgeo.com CartoDB cartodb.com MapServer mapserver.org Geomoose geomoose.org Frameworks: Providing a full ESRI ArcGIS Online www.arcgis.com/home stack of Client- and Server- Side Technologies
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: a) Standardized descriptive comparison of different methods Classification: According to classification system outlined above in Figure 4 (Classification scheme) Description: Short textual description and analysis of the experience using technology. Base Platform or Application: User interface: Programming language(s): Base map source(s): Level of expertise for Programming: Level of expertise for GIS: License/restrictions: Cost:
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: b) Competitive analysis study rating different technologies for functionality and ease of use Roth et al. 2014 REPRESENTATION and INTERACTION techniques Results of Rating of each technique for each candidate technology Effective visual representation? Still useful as model? Currently on hold Roth, R.; Donohue, R.; Sack, C.; Wallace, T.; & Buckingham, T. (2014). A process for keeping pace with evolving web mapping technologies. Cartographic Perspectives , 78, 25-52.
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses Section 2 Part 1: Needs and Desires: Design/Functionality Multiscale: How important is it that the display of thematic map content responds seamlessly to change in map scale (i.e. zooming in to show more detail on content layers)? Interactivity: How important is it that the technology allows change in the map display to respond to user requests (egs. layer controls, pop-ups)? Exploreability : * How important is the ability of the technology to allow user exploration i.e. “drilling down” into map data by means of query -based selection, reclassification, etc. ? Timeline : * How important is it that the technology easily incorporates time-line or time slider controls to the map display? Animation : * How important is it that there is dynamic movement of features or objects on the map? Cartographic design: How important is it that the technology allows the designer to customize the symbolization and look and feel of the map itself? Interface design: How important is it that the technology allows the designer to customize the interaction and look and feel of the user interface to the map?
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, frequency distribution n = 49 Expectations: All “important” Professor/teacher (12) Goal: Look at unexpected Student (7) “Not”s or “Extremely”s and Librarian (13) use them to help understand Researcher/analyst (13) our stakeholders Commercial (4) Number of respondents * * * Rating of Characteristic
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, categorized by user group * * *
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, frequency distribution * *
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, categorized by user group * *
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, frequencies * *
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, categorized by user group * *
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future
Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future Preliminary results: Section 3: Experience using web-mapping technologies Descriptive analysis of responses, sorted by level of engagement
Recommend
More recommend
