There is a very specific aspect of the difference between the two
which I have speculated has a role in the appeal of slippy maps and
globes. In a static map there is a neatline which abruptly reminds the
viewer that this is a symbolic representation, a limited view which
requires interpretation and a cognitive leap to connect with reality.
Such map-reading skills are not necessarily widespread or deep in the
population.
In a sense, both slippy maps and globes have no bounds and can almost
be approached as viewports or "God's eye" views on the world rather
than deliberate and artificial representations. Satellite imagery just
exacerbates this paradigm - "where's my car?"
This degree of association (dissociation?) might actually be something
measurable in specific map interpretation tests.
Interactivity is something of a different issue, although it has
clearly been recognized for some time as an important element in
forming 3D mental pictures from flat views.
-Josh Lieberman
On Jun 16, 2009, at 4:07 PM, Mike Liebhold wrote:
Hi Tyler
Whether you are talking about static paper maps or processed digital
rasters, there may not be a -quantitative- answer to your
cognititive(?) or user interface(?) question about the benefits of
digital maps., but -qualitative- benefits are QED by reviewing the
additional -qualities-
-users is able to pan, zoom and tilt, to widen or narrow views
depending on scope of query or presentation requirements.
- users can add or subtract data depending on depth of query or
visualization requirements.
- users can see visual answers to wide or narrow, complex or simple
queries,
- users can be creators by adding new data . . .
etc.
- Mike
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
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
