Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.gis
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:53:00 PDT
              <GIS-L@UBVM.BITNET>
From:         Chris Hermansen <clh@TFIC.BC.CA>
Subject:      More user interface blues
X-To:         GIS-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu

Hi all;

With apologies to Paul T. for munging the subject line again (no Paul, it's
not the software, it's the interface I present to my computer), I'd like to beg
everyone's indulgence while I stick my oar in once more...

First of all, to those hard-working software developers and support folks at
the various GIS vendors whom I broadsided a few days ago, my apologies.  I
thought a bit about what I wrote and decided that probably all the wrong
people would get upset about what I said (if they bothered to read it!)
regarding the accretion of MUF on GIS software.

Second, I would like to reiterate that it's my firm belief that software
vendors (GIS or otherwise) who charge substantial after-sales support fees
often appear to put priority of development of new features to attract new
sales ahead of bug fixes, tuning, and user-driven (as opposed to market-driven)
enhancements.

Third, in the ongoing user-interface debate, I feel it's important to
distinguish between two fairly broad classes of GIS application; on the one
hand, the "yellow GIS" application that Martin F. mentions - applications where
the typical user has only the vaguest notions of spatial processing, and a
user interface that hides all possible complexity is paramount; and on the
other, planning tools (aka decision support systems) intended for an audience
with a fairly deep understanding of spatial processing and intimate
acquaintance with the data to be processed.  To date, the typical GIS user
has probably tended to belong to the latter camp.  I think "intuitive user
interface" proponents attribute this to the lack of a user interface
that permits less sophisticated folk to manipulate data.  Finally, constant
harping on this theme has pervaded the industry for so long that marketing
types (at least) are starting to accept this hypothesis as gospel.

To which I say, "hogwash"!  There are some mighty good reasons that most
people don't have a GIS at home, and none of them relate to a user interface
(or lack thereof).

The biggest reason is one of cost.  Hardware costs a lot (colour monitors,
big disks, tape drives, plotters, etc etc).  Software costs a lot, too.
The initial acquisition of useful data costs an humongous amount, dwarfed only
by the costs of keeping that data up to date.  Even if the hardware and
software were free (ha ha), few people can afford to buy the data they need.

The next biggest reason is one of education.  Based upon people I've talked
to (in a non-professional context especially, but even for eg computer
types unfamiliar with mapping and spatial analysis), the general level of
what one might term "geographic understanding" is pretty low out there.
Ask your mom what map scale is sometime if you don't believe me.  Now, without
trying to sound too elitist, I would claim that calling a group of people
a potential user community when they understand almost none of the basic
concepts of the analysis process in question is an odd way to look at things.
Definitely a marketing challenge, right up there with trying to sell financial
services in a barter society.

Now maybe my "natural resources" orientation warps my perspective, but I
would really think that data availability would constitute the third major
reason for there not being a GIS in every home.  If Rand-McNally or
Bartholomew's published their maps in ArcView format, and the whole works
would not just barely run but actually do something useful on the 80386SX
VGA machines with 1Mb of memory and 20Mb of hard disk that "everyone" has
at home, well OK, the home user might get interested.  However, throw in
a significant hardware cost (SuperVGA board, monitor, lots of extra memory,
80387, 100Mb hard disk) and software cost (both for the GIS and the data),
and you're probably out of the range of the home user.  I think that a
similar analysis applies to the small business user; pre-published atlases
are probably of minimal use, so data acquisition cost goes way up; in any
event, currency of data is important, so even if an atlas does fill the bill,
the prospective business user must upgrade it as often as possible.  And
so it goes.  In forestry, typical government datasets lack sufficient detail
for operational use, being oriented toward more "broad-brush" planning
exercises.  Forestry companies therefore spend heaps of money mapping their
landbases down to the level they require for integrated management planning
and the engineering side of timber extraction.

So if only the power users can AFFORD to use a GIS, how come we spend so
much time worrying about "naive user" interfaces?  Most power users hire
an expert or two, as much to keep their datasets in order as to actually
spend time planning...

Anyway, here's my plea, once more: GIS software developers, please spend more
time on the "real user" features in your systems; and if you're going to spend
any time on user interfaces, let it be ones that "real users" can customize
or adapt to specific needs.  Don't get confused and start thinking you're
building another word processor or electronic mail tool.

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.