Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gis
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:40:49 PDT
              <GIS-L@UBVM.BITNET>
From:         Jay Sandhu <esri!adriatic!jay@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject:      Re: RE GIS interfaces
X-To:         uunet!UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu!GIS-L@uunet.UU.NET

>What do you think about interfaces?

I was going to stay out of this debate, but ...

All computer software have an interface. The question
to ask is, "Is the interface appropriate to solve
the task that the software is designed to solve?".
I think (know) that the GIS community is no different than
any other computer industry at this moment in its
approach to solving the "interface" problem. That is,
the current approach IS to provide "interface building"
tools to the system builders.

GIS software can be used for a multitude of things. One
interface does not work for all users.  To me the interface
problem is to build an interface that provides readily
accessible tools that the user is already famillar with
and comfortable in using to solve problems.  These tools
automate what the user wishes to do. For example,
a cartographer may wish to see map design, composition tools,
a fire chief may wish to quickly get directions to an emergency,
a pavement engineer wishes to make a decision on which part of
the highway to pave, a natural resource manager wishes to
manage resources in the most efficent manner, The city wishes
to automate its land records. What is the appropriate
interface to this system? I think the correct answer is
"I do not know!" or it could be "None!".

I think it would be more appropriate to ask what application
area you are talking about before asking what is the
appropriate GIS interface.  I see this as the raster/vector
debate of the days gone by. When will these so called
GIS interaface specialists get off the soap box and
either ask a coherent question or suggest a useful metaphor?

Current interface specialists seem to worry more about the
placement of open and quit buttons rather than what the
user wanted to do in between choosing open and quit. It may
be the answer to the Human-computer interaction issues, but
it is NOT an answer to the "interaface" problem in GIS.

A common reason given to build a good "interface" is that
more people will start using it. Using it for what? How
many common people want to build maps or manage natural
resources? Would'nt you want them to know something about
map building or managing resources before providing them
tools to do just that! If the answer is NO, then the issue
is no longer that of an interface, rather, what automatic
rules do we build into our system for a user to be able
to build a map or manage natural resources. This is a very
complex task and how many systems do we know of that are
capable of doing just that?
(Yes, I do know that GIS's have many potential uses for
the common people.)

I don't agree that interface is the lost frontier in GIS,
rather, the current technology of being able to build
graphical interafaces provides us with quick methods of
experimenting with, and prototyping interfaces. Hopefully,
from these prototypes, consensus will emerge on what is
the appropriate interface for a particular task and that
will become a standard in the future. And that is where
the interface specialists play a part, i.e. doing the
prototypes and experiments with real systems and documenting
their findings (publishing). Despite commonly held opinions
the "vending" people do read what gets published.

BTW, ARC/INFO 6.0 does have a command history and editing
capability.

Jay Sandhu
email:jsandhu@esri.com
Standard disclaimers apply to all those that I offend.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU