Tracey, Fair enough, I wasn't very specific. Here is an attempt to narrow it down...
I have been mostly thinking of comparing: (1) a static map on web page or in a journal paper vs. (2) an 'interactive' map/globe that lets you pan, zoom, turn on/off layers, can click to query object attributes. The main difference seems to be that for (1) someone else decided in advance how everything is presented, while for the (2) the user has control over their viewpoint and some limited control over the content that is presented. In terms of use case/application it would be to convey information on large environmental datasets (measured observations or model output) that change over time, such as air quality, water quality, weather patterns, etc. For my typical use cases, the qualitative answer seems obvious: "Yes, the interactive nature of these tools helps to convey the information contained in these large spatial-temporal datasets." But I am interested on finding cite-able studies (human computer interaction, social sciences, education, etc) that have quantified the benefit. - Tyler Tracey P. Lauriault wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[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
