Adapting Web Mapping Curriculum to Open Source Technologies


Published on

Presentation given on May 22, 2013 at the FOSS4G North America conference in Minneapolis.

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 1. Development—what’s out there? 2) Design—what are people using and what for? 3) Dissemination—how is it learned by novice developers? 4) Adaptation—was the process successful and can we use this process to update our skills base in the future?
  • Purpose not to pick a “winner”, but select a technology stack that works given the G575 context.
  • 1) Justifies dual interest in representation and interaction in matrix. 2) Flash is animation-focused; wrong tool for the job to begin with?
  • Intro classes: industry standards software; advanced: open-source. Curriculum reflects bimodal distribution of access/cost.
  • Platform dependency: does it work on IE? Also showing lack of emphasis on mobile, location-aware. How would this change today?
  • Technology itself results in different aesthetics (same participant). Everyone emphasized time in solution, one of the requirements.
  • Differences in process
  • Things we learned about what we’re looking for and how to implement it during the study led to the understanding that open source technology is critical to use and teach at this juncture. But this also means that a robust process for continuous adaptation to change is required.
  • Adapting Web Mapping Curriculum to Open Source Technologies

    1. 1. Adapting Web Mapping Curriculumto Open Source Technologies{Carl M.,Robert E.,Richard G.,Timothy R.,Tanya M.A.};[Interactive map by Chloe Quinn]
    2. 2. introductionintroductionweandresearchdesigndevelopteachweb mapsUW-MADISON CARTOGRAPHY PROGRAM
    3. 3. introduction
    4. 4. introduction“../uh-oh.swf”G575 === Adobe Flash
    5. 5. guiding questions“which technologies or tools should we use forweb mapping?”“how do we use these tools to make webmaps that are well-designed?”“how do we teach these tools?”“how can we adapt tothe rapid pace of change?”var q1 =var q2 =var q3 =var q4 =
    6. 6. processfunction 1 {competitive analysis of existing technologies};function 3 {diary study with representative webmapping scenario};function 2 {needs assessment survey of UW staff};
    7. 7. competitive analysis
    8. 8. [ Coding Completed Spring 2012]
    9. 9. [ Coding Completed Spring 2012]
    10. 10. [ Coding Completed Spring 2012]
    11. 11. needs assessment surveyUW SystemGeospatial Alliance
    12. 12. needs assessment surveyplease rate the importance of the followingcharacteristics of web maps:
    13. 13. please rate the importance of the followingpractical considerations of web maps:needs assessment survey
    14. 14. please rate the importance of the followingtechnical considerations of web maps:needs assessment survey
    15. 15. diary studyMAPPINGTASKS40 work hours +training & journaling
    16. 16. diary study
    17. 17. D3 Google Maps APILeafletOpenLayers
    18. 18. diary studyWork Logs = one entry per hour with code, screenshot, emotionsOpenLayersControl Participant
    19. 19. diary studyWork Logs = one entry per hour with code, screenshot, emotionsLeaflet v0.4 releaseLeafletVariable Participant C
    20. 20. diary study
    21. 21. d3 Google Maps APILeaflet OpenLayers
    22. 22. conclusion = Leaflet + D3
    23. 23. conclusiontechnologies==[[aesthetic, interactive], [flexible, scalable], [stable, learnable]]design==[extensible, impactable, low-cost]teaching==[collaborative, employable]adaptation==[rapid, ongoing]WHY OPEN SOURCE?
    24. 24. conclusionThank you!Carl Sackcmsack@wisc.eduwww.northlandia.comRoth RE, RG Donohue, CM Sack, TR Wallace, and TMA Buckingham. 2013.  “A process for assessingemergent web mapping technologies.” In: Proceedings of the 26th International Cartographic Conference.Dresden, Germany: August 25-30.