At the 2008 WhereCamp we had a debate session on 'Is 3D shit?' which
was my flippant way of comparing the cost/benefit of pouring lots of
money in to spinny globes. MSFT and GOOG said that it didn't cost that
much, which I thought was a relative statement and not entirely
reliable given the sources. But, perhaps after the sunk costs of
acquiring the technology and data the maintenance cost is relatively
low. Or something.
I suspect one of the biggest benefits is brand awareness.
Best
Steve
On 16 Jun 2009, at 11:39, Tyler Erickson wrote:
Have there been academic studies that compare static cartographic maps
to interactive slippy maps and virtual globes, in term of the quality
and quantity of information that can be communicated? I've been
searching, but so far the literature seems rather sparse.
It seems to me that there is great value in the interactive nature of
modern tools, particularly in the ability to quickly change
perspective
to see both the 'forest', the 'trees', and how they are related. And
another area for which the interactive maps/globes seem to shine is in
presenting temporal data. But has there been work in recent years to
quantify the benefit of this interactivity?
I'm mostly interested in representing attributes of objects for which
the 3-D location is important (i.e. objects moving in the atmosphere),
but any leads on the value of interactive maps are also appreciated.
- Tyler
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
