There are some human computer interaction studies. Studies explore useability, navigation, recall and a variety of congnitive issues associated with interactive maps. Comparisons with paper maps are not done as these are not comperable. Also, when discussing interactive maps, you have to be very specific - hand held devices, in car navigation, climate change simulation models, cybercartographic atlases, and so on.
More importantly, the type of map and its degree of interactivity and dynamic content need to meet particular needs and use cases or applications. Your question is very broad. A paper topo map that has been plasticized for folding and transport maybe just what you need for a canoe trip, particularly if you do not have access to the internet in the wilderness! In that case, well, the paper map might be better and so .... On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:42 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
