Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gis
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 08:59:00 PDT
              <GIS-L@UBVM.BITNET>
From:         Chris Hermansen <clh@TFIC.BC.CA>
Subject:      Re: GIS Interfaces: NO WE DON'T!!! (was: we do agree)
X-To:         GIS-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu

Peter Halls writes:

>
>I think that I'll give a view now ...
>
>The User interface side has now been well covered.  I think that, however, the
>HARDWARE interface of GIS implementations are also an area in which work is
>necessary

[stuff deleted]
>
>HOWEVER ... most GIS implementors appear to do as little as possible in terms
>of the 'hardcopy' input and output support.  What they do provide usually
>works but supports only a minimalist set of the device facilities and provision
>of enhancement falls very low down the priority list

[more stuff deleted]
>
>If the data is not there, or cannot be got out in the form required by the
>user it hardly matters how good (or otherwise) the user interface is ... but
>don't neglect either at the expense of the other, PLEASE!

OK, Peter, I agree with you, and here's my CDN$0.02 worth:

What really boggles my mind is that most computer-related endeavours (speaking
on the commercial development/marketing/sales side, not academic) are eternally
searching for MORE FEATURES (sometimes confused with MUF, or More Useless
Features) to add to their software so that they can attract new customers
instead of (horror of horrors) actually improving what they have based upon
reliable feedback from their existing customers.

This is understandable in a situation where the only source of revenue is
new customers (or trade-up customers).  However, in big GIS, where most
sales revenues must be eaten up by costs (of preparing RFPs, discounts given
to volume buyers, etc), can it be much other than the regular support fees
pouring in that keep vendors thriving?

Having said all this, I find the amount of MUF accreting on most GISes
searching for that elusive "average user" a bit irritating, because most
of the really hard stuff (like good features for automated annotation
positioning, for instance, or maybe decent performance) that the "captive
audience" of on-support customers is being ignored as a consequence.

Imagine my surprise in finding out that the latest major release of software
from a certain GIS vendor had added all kinds of apparent support for new
output file formats like Illustrator and CGM but had broken the basic
ability to draw annotation, and had added an OpenLook user interface
builder but still had not managed to figure out how to track and
display the digitizer table input.  Not to mention that the software
was, in general, so slow as to be unusable on the hardware platform on
which the previous release had performed quite adequately...

Contrast this to the LP software package we use, called CPLEX.  Every year,
I get a new version that is 15-20% faster, has more features, and generally
works better.

A plea to GIS manufacturers: how about reorganizing your priorities to fix
existing features that don't work (well or at all) BEFORE you add more features
(that often times don't work at all either)?  And how about considering
basic performance as a goal in its own right, as opposed to something that
you might achieve once you get all the MUF added?

Sorry to sound so snarky, folks; I know that lots of people are more interested
in innovation than refinement.  I just think it's time for more of the latter.

Chris Hermansen                         Timberline Forest Inventory Consultants
Voice: 1 604 733 0731                   302 - 958 West 8th Avenue
FAX:   1 604 733 0634                   Vancouver B.C. CANADA
clh@tfic.bc.ca                          V5Z 1E5

C'est ma facon de parler.
Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gis