towards cartographic standards for web based flood hazard maps

1. Towards Cartographic
Standards for Web-Based
Flood Hazard Maps
ICON Engineering, Inc. & University of Colorado, Boulder

2. Who We Are
Eben Dennis
ICON Engineering, GIS Coordinator
Civil Engineering firm
FEMA Mapping Partner
Primarily Public Sector projects (UDFCD,
Boulder, Denver, Greeley, Ft Collins)
Certified Floodplain Managers
UC Denver Geography Program Graduate
Robert Soden
University of Colorado, Boulder, PhD Student
Co-Risk Labs, Principal
California-based research and design
company
Previous Background
World Bank Global Facility for Disaster
Reduction and Recovery

3. Why Are We Doing This?
Web-based flood maps and web-based maps in general are mostly garbage.
The tendency to create a GIS in the browser is a massive pitfall for both the
public and experts attempting to utilize these applications.
Web-based mapping is still a relatively new field, and cartographic/design
standards are not widespread if they exist at all.
These applications have clear potential, but the design standards still need to
be developed to provide best practices for effective communication and end-
user suitability.

4. User Centered Design
Specify the context of use: Identify the people who will use the product,
what they will use it for, and under what conditions they will use it.
Specify requirements: Identify any business requirements or user goals
that must be met for the product to be successful.
Create design solutions: This part of the process may be done in
stages, building from a rough concept to a complete design.
Evaluate designs: Evaluation - ideally through usability testing with
actual users - is as integral as quality testing is to good software
development.
From usability.gov

5. Why Web-Based Flood Hazard Maps?
The ability to distribute and communicate flood maps in an effective and wide-
reaching manner enables its use in all phases of the risk cycle, from planning
and mitigation to response and recovery.
The barrier to access for both developers and end-users is becoming lower and
lower with each new iteration of web-mapping products.

6. Previous Research - Public Facing
Typical Problems:
“Map portals over-focus on the the map, under-
focus on text-based search and discovery”
Providing multiple data layers in a web-map
application decreases usability for most of the
audience
Solutions:
Treat your data more like a search engine,
include auto-complete, make it obvious.
Focused, single-topic applications; accomodate
the small number of power users by making
data available for download; provide custom
basemaps with some data already built in.

7. Previous Research - Public Facing
Timoney’s Four Requirements of a Web Application:
FAST, INTUITIVE, INFORMATIVE, FAST
Many tools included in out-of-the-box web applications look and act like a desktop
GIS, which is great if you’re a trained GIS user, not so much for the other 98% of
your audience.
If you want a layer to contain information on a click, why would you make a user
click on an ‘Info’ button first?

8. Previous Research
Roth & Cartographic Interaction
“How maps are manipulated by the
map user”
Contrasts with the classic
Communication Model
Map & user influence each other
Speed of application can affect
productivity and focus

9. Interviews
Conducted interviews with floodplain engineers, clients, and end users to help
determine the utility of the applications.
Two audiences were identified:
Public - typical homeowner, wants to know if they are in the floodplain
Expert - engineers and clients utilizing maps as a data immersion tool
Decisions made with this application will potentially affect the public user

10. Methodology

11. Competitor Analysis
Analyzed 25 different flood mapping sites
Nearly all government owned/operated
What interaction operations are supported?
How is flood risk represented?
Clear Statement of Purpose
Clear Branding/Ownership
Disclaimers
Address Lookup
Dictionary/Links to Further Info
Guidance for Property in the Floodplain
Base Map Options

12. Competitor Analysis
Almost everyone using ESRI stacks
Good news is that most sites had address lookups
Bad news is that almost none of the sites tell you what to do if, in fact, your
home is in the floodplain.
Who do I actually talk to about buying it? What if my house is elevated? What
the heck is an elevation certificate? These are all important pieces of
information that users want to know in this context.

13. Competitor Analysis

14. Competitor
Analysis
GIS on the internet
Too many buttons that have no
intuitive meaning to non-GIS
users
No clear purpose
Slow load times, near impossible
to keep user interest

15. Competitor
Analysis
Single purpose application
Limited interactions
Plenty of opportunity for self-
directed learning by users
Not too text heavy, but does a
good job of providing links to
users who are interested in
learning more

16. Walkthrough
Created web-map application for a public
audience
Single purpose of the application is to identify
flood hazards in Boulder, CO
Built on Mapbox GL and Turf.js (fast!)
Consists of search bar, map panel, info panel,
small legend
Limited interactions
Statement of purpose is given up front in the
info panel
Flood information is provided for users in and
out of the floodplain
Additional flooding information is provided in a
custom basemap
Had public users think aloud while they used the
application

17. Walkthrough

18. Walkthrough - Findings
People used the search bar, overwhelmingly - though some were confused by
autocomplete.
Almost as overwhelmingly, they don’t read text
Simple, actionable instructions - what is the key information the public needs at
each stage of the project?

19. Walkthrough - Findings
The NFIP 100-year floodplain presents a limited portrayals of flood hazard.
People were genuinely surprised when they realized that areas outside the
floodplain were affected by the 2013 Colorado floods.
In making these sites simple to use, we need to be careful to not convey
simplistic understanding of science - when we added the 2013 flood footprint
and it created just enough dissonance for people to get engaged and start
asking interesting questions

20. Survey
For the expert audience, we utilized two existing applications built by ICON
Engineering.
All of the questions on the survey were open-ended, with the exception of
difficulty ratings, in order to better simulate a real-world decision making
process.
The audience is wholly comprised of CASFM YMG members, so the
expectation is they will be comfortable with web-map applications and have the
ability to accurately answer technical questions.

21. Survey Application 1

22. Survey -
Application 1
Too many clickable elements
Alternatives aren’t easily
distinguished
Flow direction arrows extremely
useful
Speed, clickable information,
layer toggles? All good things.
Missing statement of purpose,
lacking instructions, more
description needed for layers

23. Survey Application 2

24. Survey -
Application 2
Transparency on transparency
isn’t the most effective
Layer switching not as intuitive
as toggles/checkboxes
Speed? Still a good thing.
Needs a better description of
what each layer represents
When multiple elements are
clickable, more clarity for what
layer fired the popup

25. Next Steps

26. Next Steps
Better in-page analytics
Click tracking
Time spent on page
More data!
Gather more user feedback on the
two expert systems
Iterate!

27. Questions?
Slides available at ebendennis.github.io/notes