CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this research was to evaluate which cloud based mapping service is most effective at displaying the Connectory’s data. Conclusions will be discussed by addressing the research questions introduced earlier.

1) How should cloud-based tools be utilized for the effective map display of very large point datasets?

The initial design process aimed to create a map that was more intuitive to use than the existing web map (powered by Zeemaps). The data and functionality required a more complex map. Privacy concerns over some sensitive data meant that only some data could be displayed in the map. This was mostly address and industry information, which was

provided as a set of .csv tables. Search functionality to be added included a company search, a locational search, and specific searches for NAICS codes (industry classification codes), and business classification codes. A unified color scheme for industry classification was developed. Overlays (such as congressional districts) were added, as well as functionality to turn on/off overlay and industry layers. These design and functionality requirements were addressed in each map prototype development.

2) How does the usability of a Fusion Tables based web map compare to that of an ArcGIS Online web map?

The usability survey was given to 25 students from the Geography department. It consisted of tasks and questions related to design and functionality of each prototype. Overall the Fusion Tables map prototype was preferred. Participants completed tasks with a quicker time than those of the ArcGIS Online map prototype. The overall color scheme of base map was more familiar to respondents, and the zoom was more favored.

However, while most respondents thought the interface was simple and intuitive, there were issues in design and functionality mentioned in the open ended question responses. The overall purpose of the map was confusing, as was the need for two search bars. One respondent said the map should be more ‘elegant’. Two search bars was a very clunky work around to initial functionality requirements, and what the Fusion Tables API could support. A keyword search can’t be combined with a locational search, but this may change. A redesign of the map would focus more on aesthetics, as well as add more explanatory text describing the map.

The performance testing revealed that the Fusion Tables map prototype performed slightly faster than the ArcGIS Online map prototype. The performance test ran for 5 minutes with an increasing linear progression of 200 users. It was a simple GET request, performed on increasing intervals of the grouped data points, starting at 1000 points up to 22000+ points. While both maps were expected to preform similarly, the amount of data received browser-side by the ArcGIS Online map prototype was around 8 GB, which many account for the slower load times during the performance testing. It may also account for the slower load times mentioned by survey respondents.

3) What are the technical challenges and functional limitations in the development and implementation of both map prototypes?

A basic SWOT analysis was conducted for each map prototype to address this. Both mapping services benefit from being cloud based, and having free tiers of service. This frees an organization from the cost and upkeep of expensive GIS software. However, for the functionality requested and discussed during the initial design process, design of both map prototypes is well outside the knowledge domain of a novice to GIS. Familiarity with some programming is needed to understand the Fusion Tables API and the ESRI JavaScript API. These APIs are needed to design and create complex map functionalities.

Fusion Tables as a mapping service is best for simpler maps, as there are data and query structure limitations. It does render data more quickly than ArcGIS Online seems to. The base maps and basic search functionalities (pan/zoom) are more familiar to a user than the base maps from ESRI’s ArcGIS Online. Maintenance is easy, once the data is prepared. However the existence of maps based on Fusion Tables is not a stable one, as Fusion Tables is still a beta product. It could be deprecated at any time.

ArcGIS Online maps initially would be easier to set up for a simpler map, but data services can become expensive in the long run. Larger datasets can be cumbersome to upload and render. The aesthetics would be a bit more unfamiliar to the average user, but mapping services are optimized to work across both web and mobile platforms.

The results from this research point to a user preference for the Fusion Tables map prototype. A redesign of this prototype would incorporate design suggestions from the usability survey for a more elegant look, as well as more information for the purpose of the

map. Some functionality would need to be dropped from the map, simply because the Fusion Tables API is inadequate in addressing combined keyword and locational searches. While this is a free product and would therefore be the best option if cost is a big issue, it should be expected that this map may not be supported in the future.

REFERENCES

Abran, A., Khelifi, A., Suryn, W., & Seffah, A. (2003). Usability meanings and

interpretations in ISO standards. Software Quality Journal, 11(4), 325–338. Springer. Bevan, N. (2001). International standards for HCI and usability. International Journal of

Human-Computer Studies, 55(4), 533–552. Elsevier. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2001.0483

Cammarano, M., Dong, X. L., Chan, B., Klingner, J., Talbot, J., Halevey, A., & Hanrahan, P. (2007). Visualization of heterogeneous data. IEEE transactions on visualization and

computer graphics, 13(6), 1200-7. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2007.70527

Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology (p. 243). Routledge.

Foster, I., Zhao, Yong, Raicu, I., & Lu, S. (2008). Cloud Computing and Grid Computing 360-Degree Compared. 2008 Grid Computing Environments Workshop, 1-10. Ieee. doi:10.1109/GCE.2008.4738445

Goodchild, M. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 1-15.

Goodchild, M. (2009). NeoGeography and the nature of geographic expertise. Journal of

Location Based Services, 3(2), 82-96. doi:10.1080/17489720902950374

Haklay, M. (2006). GIS/2+ 10: Has new GIS emerged? London.

Haklay, M., Singleton, A., & Parker, C. (2008). Web Mapping 2.0: The Neogeography of the GeoWeb. Geography Compass, 2(6), 2011-2039. doi:10.1111/j.1749-

8198.2008.00167.x

Hu, C., Zhao, Yongwang, Li, J., Liu, M., Ma, D., & Li, X. (2010). OGC-compatible high- performance web map service for remote sensing data visualization. Proceedings of

the 12th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services (pp. 657–660). ACM.

Jankowski, P. (1996). Architecture for space and time distributed collaborative spatial decision making. World Wide Web Internet And Web Information Systems (pp. 516- 525).

Jankowski, P., & Stasik, M. (1997). Design consideration for space and time distributed collaborative spatial decision making. Journal of Geographic Information and

Decision Analysis, 1(1), 1–8. Citeseer.

Lanter, D., & Essinger, R. (1991). User-centered graphical user interface design for gis.

National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Report 91-(April).

MacEachren, A. & Kraak, J. (2014). Research Challenges in Geovisualization. Cartography

and Geographic Information Science, 28(1), 3-12, doi:

10.1559/152304001782173970

McLafferty, S. (2004). The socialization of GIS. Cartographica: The International Journal

for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 39(2), 51–53. UT Press.

Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2011). The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing ( Draft ) Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Nist

Special Publication, 145.

Miller, C. C. (2006). A Beast in the Field: The Google Maps Mashup as GIS/2.

Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 41(3), 187-199. doi:10.3138/J0L0-5301-2262-N779

Newman, G., Zimmerman, D., Crall, A., Laituri, M., Graham, J., & Stapel, L. (2010). User- friendly web mapping: lessons from a citizen science website. International Journal

of Geographical Information Science, 24(12), 1851-1869.

doi:10.1080/13658816.2010.490532

Nielsen, J. (1992). The usability engineering life cycle. Computer, 25(3), 12-22. doi: 10.1109/2.121503

Nivala, A.-M., Brewster, S., & Sarjakoski, T. L. (2008). Usability Evaluation of Web Mapping Sites. Cartographic Journal, The, 45(2), 129-138.

doi:10.1179/174327708X305120

Pucher, A. (2008). Use and Users of the ÖROK-Atlas online. Cartographic Journal, The,

45(2), 108-116. doi: 10.1179/174327708X305102

Robinson, A., Chen, J., Lengerich, E., Meyer, H., & MacEachren, A. Combining Usability Techniques to Design Geovisualization Tools for Epidemiology. Cartography and

Geographic Information Science, 32(4), 243-255. doi:

10.1559/1523040057751947000

Roth, R., Ross, S., & MacEachren, A. (2015). User-Centered Design for Interactive Maps: A Case Study in Crime Analysis. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 4(1), 262-301.

Rouse, L. J., Bergeron, S. J., & Harris, T. M. (2007). The geospatial web: how geobrowsers, social software and the Web 2.0 are shaping the network society. The Geospatial Web (p. 295). Springer.

Sauro, J. (2005). Estimating completion rates from small samples using binomial confidence intervals: comparisons and recommendations. Human Factors and Ergonomics

Society, 2100-2104.

Schroeder, P. (1996). Criteria for the Design of a GIS/2. Retrieved April 26, 2011, from http://www.commoncoordinates.com/ppgis/criteria.html

Sears, A., Jacko, J., & Dubach, E. (2000). International Aspects of World Wide Web Usability and the Role of High-End Graphical Enhancements. International Journal

of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(2), 241-261.

Sheppard, E. (1995). GIS and Society: Towards a Research Agenda. Cartography and

Geographic Information Science, 22(1), 5-16. doi:10.1559/152304095782540555

Sieber, R. E. (2004). Rewiring for a GIS/2. Cartographica: The International Journal for

Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 39(1), 25–39. UT Press.

Steiniger, S., & Bocher, E. (2009). An overview on current free and open source desktop GIS developments. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23(10), 1345-1370. doi:10.1080/13658810802634956

Tsou, M. (2008). The Integration of Internet GIS and Wireless Mobile GIS. The GIS Manual. Tsou, M., & Curran, J. (2008). User-Centered Design Approaches for Web Mapping

Applications: A Case Study with USGS Hydrological Data in the United States.

International Perspectives on Maps and the Internet (p. 301). Springer Verlag.

Turner, A. (2006). Introduction to neogeography (p. 54). O’Reilly Media, Inc. Wilkins-Diehr, N., Gannon, D., Klimeck, G., Oster, S., & Pamidighantam, S. (2008).

TeraGrid science gateways and their impact on science. Computer, 41(11), 32–41. IEEE.

Wright, D. J., & Wang, S. (2011). The emergence of spatial cyberinfrastructure. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(14), 5488-

91. doi:10.1073/pnas.1103051108

Yang, C., Goodchild, M., Huang, Q., Nebert, D., Raskin, R., Xu, Y., Bambacus, M., et al. (2011). Spatial cloud computing: how can the geospatial sciences use and help shape cloud computing? Journal of Digital.

Zang, N., & Rosson, M. (2008). Mashups: who? what? why? CHI 2008 Proceedings, Works