Geohistory-Gohistoire Historical Geovisualization Online Learning - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
geohistory g ohistoire historical geovisualization online
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Geohistory-Gohistoire Historical Geovisualization Online Learning - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 30, 2022 88 likes •389 views

Geohistory-Gohistoire 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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

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 Map and Data Library Prinicipal Investigator University of Toronto Kevin Roy, RA, University of Toronto James Clifford, collaborator , University of Saskatchewan Glenn Brauen, collaborator , University of Toronto at Scarborough

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Share data from previous projects – especially “orphan data”

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

White Papers on Historical GIS methods (Year 1)

slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • 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

  • f 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.

Whitepaper: Historical GIS visualization/web-mapping

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Conceptual model:

Figure 3. Roth's re-working of MacEachren’s “Cartography cube” (Roth 2013)

  • 2. Classification of web geo-visualization technologies

Types of technologies, and which are more or less suitable to different HGIS needs

Primarily presentation Primarily interaction

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Draft version Classification

  • f web

geo-visualization technologies more

  • r less suitable

for HGIS (Draft version)

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Our selected set of candidate web-mapping technologies Classification

  • f web

geo-visualization technologies more

  • r less suitable

for HGIS (Draft version)

Technology category Web technology Web url Data-Visualization Linked to Map Quadrigram www.quadrigram.com Palladio hdlab.stanford.edu/projects/palladio Tableau tableau.com Viewshare viewshare.org Dynamic Map-Centered Presentations ESRI Storymaps storymaps.arcgis.com StoryMapJS storymap.knightlab.com Kartograph www.kartograph.org Time-Enabled Map-Mounting Services Mapstory mapstory.org Google Earth API (Timeslider) developers.google.com/earth/documentatio n/time (deprecated) replaced by developers.google.com/kml/documentation/ time TimeMapper timemapper.okfnlabs.org Timemap.js code.google.com/p/timemap (Google map version of Simile timeline http://www.simile- widgets.org/timeline/ Neatline neatline.org Heurist heuristnetwork.org/ APIs: Exposing a Subset of Functionality for Web Map Mashups (generally built on

  • pen libraries)

Google Maps API developers.google.com/maps Bing Maps API www.bingmapsportal.com Openlayers

  • penlayers.org

Leaflet leafletjs.com D3 d3js.org Open Libraries: Supporting Client-Side Map Rendering MapBox www.mapbox.com Boundless (OpenGeo) boundlessgeo.com CartoDB cartodb.com MapServer mapserver.org Geomoose geomoose.org Frameworks: Providing a full stack of Client- and Server- Side Technologies ESRI ArcGIS Online www.arcgis.com/home

slide-8
SLIDE 8

a) Standardized descriptive comparison of different methods

Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods:

Classification: According to classification system

  • utlined 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:

slide-9
SLIDE 9

b) Competitive analysis study rating different technologies for functionality and ease of use

Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods:

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.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

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:

slide-11
SLIDE 11

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:

slide-12
SLIDE 12

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:

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?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

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:

Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, frequency distribution

* *

Number of respondents Rating of Characteristic

*

n = 49 Professor/teacher (12) Student (7) Librarian (13) Researcher/analyst (13) Commercial (4) Expectations: All “important” Goal: Look at unexpected “Not”s or “Extremely”s and use them to help understand

  • ur stakeholders
slide-14
SLIDE 14

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:

Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, categorized by user group

* * *

slide-15
SLIDE 15

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:

Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, frequency distribution

* *

slide-16
SLIDE 16

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:

Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, categorized by user group

* *

slide-17
SLIDE 17

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:

Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, frequencies

* *

slide-18
SLIDE 18

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:

Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, categorized by user group

* *

slide-19
SLIDE 19

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:

slide-20
SLIDE 20

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:

Preliminary results: Section 3: Experience using web-mapping technologies Descriptive analysis of responses, sorted by level of engagement

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Preliminary results: Section 3: Experience using web-mapping technologies Descriptive analysis of responses, sorted by level of engagement , and user group 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:

* *

slide-22
SLIDE 22

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:

Analysis (informal)

  • f open

ended textual questions, looking for insights and trends

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Analysis (informal) of open ended textual questions, looking for insights and trends Examples: Summary by K. Roy 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:

Are there any additional design, technical or practical considerations of web maps not listed above that are important in your team's design/development priorities? Data portability; downloadable data; the ablility to incorporate user comments/ additions; multi-map views with comparable legend and histogram overlay. Some quotes:

“No, but I would like to emphasize how vital CMS integration is to the maps that I want to produce and the stories I want to tell. The difficulty of implementing a flexible CMS that can be tied directly to robustly managed GIS data is a major stumbling block for my current data+history project.”

slide-24
SLIDE 24

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:

Analysis (informal) of open ended textual questions, looking for insights and trends Examples: Summary by K. Roy What would you like to see online in historical web-mapping or geovisualization which you do not see now? Options that respondents would like to see include: creation and distribution of more robust datasets; custom base maps that change with time being shown in map; downloadable data; easier time animation options; easy to add raster layers, time slider, custom projections; open linked data; more application integration, how-to guides (complete instructions for projects, not just piecemeal tutorials); option to display project-level information; ability to deposit and reuse data. Some quotes:

“ An easy/intuitive plug-and-play time animation application, although datasets are so nuanced that it would be difficult. That said, … I just wish I didn't have to take the time to learn how to build it from the ground up in

  • JavaScript. Selfish request! ”
slide-25
SLIDE 25

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:

Analysis (informal) of open ended textual questions, looking for insights and trends Examples: Summary by K. Roy Among the above technologies used by you (or your design/development team), which do you use most commonly in your projects? What aspects of these technologies make them particularly useful in your work? ArcGIS (though not always clear whether online), Google products, CartoDB, Mapbox, Leaflet, OpenLayers and StoryMaps are most commonly (more than once) cited as favorites for reasons that include: ease of use,

  • pen and gratis, customizable, and interoperable with other technologies.

Simplicity of time animation mentioned in particular for CartoDB. Problems mentioned include: slow speeds, limited visualization options, and technologies that require too much specialized training or a learning curve. Some quotes:

"The ability to easily incorporate a raster layer seems to be the biggest limitation of most web-mapping technologies.“ "It was crucial that we have a toolset that was configurable, compliant to open specs, and was available without ongoing licensing fees that would create budgeting difficulties for community partners."

slide-26
SLIDE 26

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:

Analysis (informal) of open ended textual questions, looking for insights and trends Examples: Summary by K. Roy We are considering creating a "Historical web-mapping technology profiles" section on our project website, where different technologies would be described and reviewed, and users would be able to comment based on their own experience and make recommendations about usefulness or suggestions for

  • improvements. Is this something that would interest you and to which you might

contribute based on your own experience? Almost unanimously yes interested and many would contribute - although

  • ne respondent does not think it is a suitable endeavour for the partnership.

Some quotes:

“This would be useful. It might also be interesting to backwards engineer existing websites. ‘How did they do that’ kind of posts.” “Yes… It is often that I find that I have never heard of a technology/tool that would have made my work better and easier. Having a place where I can browse and read about existing mapping technologies sounds great!”

slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • 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. Possibilities?:

  • a checklist of questions that will constitute a "visualization needs

analysis" for any historical GIS data set and use scenario

  • a tool designed to match users’ needs and constraints to

appropriate technologies

  • examples of different technologies’ approaches to similar/typical

use scenarios

  • a “technologies review” web area where experiences/

recommendations may be shared

  • other ideas???..To be discussed …

Whitepaper: Historical GIS visualization/web-mapping

slide-28
SLIDE 28

END