2016 iccgis module1_methods_andtechniques

Workshop on
Designing & Conducting User Studies
15 June 2016 - Albena, Bulgaria

Overview of the day
Module 1
Kristien Ooms
University of Ghent, Belgium
Chair, ICA Commission on UUUI
Methods and techniques of use, user and
usability research in geo-information
processing and dissemination
Module 2
Robert Roth
University of Wisconsin Madison, USA
Vice Chair, ICA Commission on UUUI
Quantitative versus Qualitative user
research: selecting the right approach
Module 3
Kristien Ooms
University of Ghent
ICA Commission on Use and User Issues
When and how to apply Eye Tracking?
Module 4
Corné van Elzakker
University of Twente, The Netherlands
Past Chair, ICA Commission on UUUI
An Introduction to Thinking Aloud
2

ICA Commission
on Use, User, and Usability Issues
3
http://icaci.org
Rob Roth
Artemis
Skarlatidou
Alena Vondráková
Kristien Ooms
http://use.icaci.org

ICA Commission
• Small commission ‘core’
– website, bibliography, facilitation of the organization of workshops /
seminars and all relationships with ICA
• Corresponding Commission members
– Mailing list of > 125 people
– Through website
– Mainly from science, many PhD candidates
• Goals:
– Inform > Share & exchange > Facilitate
• Through:
– Workshops & Congresses
– Website & Publications
4

ICA Commission
• 20 August 2015 in Curitiba, Brazil- Joint Commission
workshop
– Designing and Conducting User Studies
– ICA Commission on Cognitive Visualization - Use and User Issues
• 21 August 2015 in Curitiba, Brazil- Joint Commission
workshop
– Envisioning the Future of Cartographic Research
– ICA Commission on Cognitive Visualization – Geovisualization -
Use and User Issues - Map Design
• 23 – 29 August 2015, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
– Several sessions on Use and User Issues
5

ICA Commission
• 6th International Symposium on the History of
Cartography
– October 13-14, 2016
– Dubrovnik, Croatia
• International Cartographic Conference 2017!!!
– July 2-7, Washington, USA
– Pre-conference workshop; Open meeting
– Sessions
• Deadline submissions: 26 October 2016
• Conference theme T07
User studies; user experience and usability; user interface design.
6
http://icc2017.org/

ICA Commission
Website
– http://use.icaci.org
– (annotated) online bibliography
7
Planned:
– NEW WEBSITE
– online overview & FAQ
 usability methods and techniques
 aspects of experiment design
 tips for analysis
 why/when one would use the techniques

ICA Commission on
Use, Users, and Usability Issues
8
Terms of Reference 2015-2019
exchange of knowledge, news, and information on use, users, and
usability in cartography, geo-information processing, and related fields.
bibliography on use, user, and usability research in cartography and
related
fields. TOPICS:
use case studies with print, web-based, and mobile
maps
methods and techniques
for evaluating products
use of emerging mapping
technologies
review paper from bibliographical database
 includes a final research agenda on map use, users, and usability for
Cartography.
online overview & FAQ
 usability methods and techniques
 aspects of experiment design
 tips for analysis
 why/when one would use the techniques
 (replaces planned book publication)

ICA Commission on
Use, Users, and Usability Issues
Terms of Reference 2015-2019
special sessions on map use, users, and usability
 at future ICA conferences
 other regional conferences on cartography and related topics.
 gather and communicate original scientific contributions
training workshops for non-specialists on use, user, and usability
issues in Cartography and related fields
participate in and contribute to workshops and seminars organized in
 other disciplines (e.g. Computer Science, Geography, GIScience)
 by other ICA Commissions
Involve & support
 young (PhD) researchers
 researchers from different cultural environments
 resulting training materials  commission’s website!
special journal issue with sibling ICA Commissions
promote scientific research

Workshop on
Designing & Conducting User Studies
Module 1:
Methods and techniques of use, user and usability research in
geo-information processing and dissemination.

Overview
• Content of the module:
“The first module will introduce you to use, user & usability research in
geo-information processing and dissemination. Reasons for doing such
research are to understand and explain how GI tools work for their users
and to design more usable tools. In this first module, the focus will be on
the latter. The concept of User Centered Design will be presented and an
overview will be given of the most commonly applied research techniques,
along with tips & tricks on how and when to use them. Experiences will be
shared in interactive sessions.”
11

Know your user
• Who are you?
– What is your background?
– Have you ever done user research?
– What are your expectations of this workshop?
– What do you hope to learn from this workshop?
– Do you have specific questions?
12

This module...
• use,
• user &
• usability research
• in geo-information processing
• and dissemination
• ???
13

14
Map use research
More holistic, functional map use research
e.g. use of cycling maps, investigated by Dutch project group

15
Types of map use research
Perceptual and cognitive research
Flannery, 1971

16
Nowadays …
• Technological developments:
– integration
 in the geodata collection
 in geoinformation production processes
• Map users became also map producers
(and collectors of map data > crowd sourcing / VGI)
• Not only maps
also other ways of geospatial data dissemination
therefore….

17
Not only MAP use issues …
But also use and user issues related to, e.g.:
– Data and databases
– Other output formats
– Software and information systems
– Hardware
– Interfaces
From map use research to use, user & usability research
in geo-information processing and
dissemination…..

18
Aspects of usability (ISO 9241-11)
Guidance on Usability:
“the extent to which a product can be used by specified users
to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and
satisfaction in a specified context of use”
Effectiveness:
the accuracy and completeness with which specified users can
achieve specified goals in particular environments
Efficiency:
the resources expended in relation to the accuracy and
completeness of goals achieved
Satisfaction:
the comfort and acceptability of the work system to its users
and other people affected by its use

19
Not only usability …
In our workshop we are dealing with:
– uses (tasks, questions, purposes, applications, etc.)
– users (human beings)
– usability
…and particularly with:
methods and techniques of doing use, user
and usability research

20
Morville, 2004
http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000029.php

21
• Useful > able to be used for a practical purpose > are our
geoinformation products and systems useful? (~ effective)
• Usable > relative ease of use
• Desirable > emotional desirability (tempers efficiency)
• Findable > users should be able to find what they need
• Accessible > geoinformation, tools and systems should also
be accessible to people with disabilities (more than 10% of
the population)
• Credible > do users trust and believe the geoinformation
products and tools they see or have to work with?
• Valuable > value should be delivered to the sponsors, the
mission must be advanced (~ satisfaction & effectiveness)
Morville, 2004
http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000029.php

The 3 U’s
• usability-utility tradeoff
 distinction between
• interfaces for experts
o great utility
o difficult to learn and use
• general-use interfaces
o transparently usable
o require little or no learning to use
o support only a small set of user tasks

23
User Centered Design
• What is UCD?
– Origin: software engineering
• Product development: waterfall model
• Involve user in all stages of design process

24
The UCD life cycle
Analyse
Requirements
Produce Design
Solutions
Conceptual
Design
& Prototype
Final Design
& Prototype
Interim
Designs &
Prototypes
Identify the
need for
user-centred
design
Design
satisfies
requirements
Evaluate Designs
Testing with
representative
users
input
Business
User
StakeholderOrganisational
Characteristics Preferences
Use contexts Tasks

25
The UCD life cycle
Analyse
Requirements
Produce Design
Solutions
Conceptual
Design
Interim
Designs &
Identify the
need for
user-centred
design
Evaluate Designs
Testing with
input
Business
User
Use contexts Tasks
Requirement analysis!!!

26
The UCD life cycle
Produce Design
Solutions
Conceptual
Design
& Prototype
Final Design
& Prototype
Interim
Designs &
Prototypes
Design
satisfies
requirements
Evaluate Designs
Testing with
representative
users
Usability evaluation
Iterative process
26

27
The UCD life cycle
27
10 “elements” of the usability engineering lifecycle
1. Know the User: Complete a needs assessment (also called a
task analysis or work domain analysis) with target users to
establish user profiles and use case scenarios;
2. Competitive Analysis: Critically compare existing interfaces
supporting similar use cases to determine how the proposed
interface can fill unmet needs;
3. Setting Goals: Use insight from the needs assessment and
competitive analysis to formalize a requirements document
of proposed functionality to guide design and development;
4. Participatory Design: Recruit a representative set of target
users to participate in the conceptual design of the interface;

28
The UCD life cycle
28
5. Coordinated Design: Coordinate design across the project team to
develop a consistent product identity (i.e., look and feel);
6. Guidelines and Heuristic Analysis: Recruit experts during design
and development to evaluate the interface according to guidelines
(generalized insights generated from the scientific investigation of
digital interfaces) and heuristics (well-accepted, overarching design
principles drawn from experience);
7. Prototyping: Create static or interactive mockups of the interface;
an early, partially-functional prototype is referred to as an alpha
release while a fully-functional, but unstable prototype is referred
to as a beta release;

29
The UCD life cycle
29
8. Empirical Testing: Recruit a representative set of target
users to evaluate the utility and usability of numerous
prototypes during their evolution; formative evaluation
describes the feedback solicited in the early to intermediate
stages of the project on the alpha and beta releases, while
summative evaluation is conducted on the full release of the
interface to determine if the usability and utility goals have
been achieved;
9. Iterative Design: Revise the interface based on feedback
from guidelines/heuristic analysis and empirical testing;
10. Collect Feedback from Field Use: Acquire feedback about the
interface after it is transitioned into the field to inform future
product releases.

31
Many user research methods & techniques
Interviews Product analysis Literature / document
studies Observation Brainstorming Surveys /
questionnaires Thinking aloud Eye-tracking Heuristic
evaluation Personas Scenario development Screen logging
Snapshot studies Focus groups Stakeholder meeting
Participatory design Retrospection Card sorting Task
analysis and modelling Cognitive walkthrough Diary /
notekeeping (empathy probes) Introspection Usability
inspections Performance testing User satisfaction
measurement Expert evaluation

32
Many user research methods & techniques
How many users?
Stage of development?
Requirement phase?
Prototype?
Objectives?
Research Questions?
Time frame?
Manpower?
Money?
End users: expertise?
End users: gender?
End users: age?
Statistical analyses?
Visual analyses?

33
Important aspects of usability research
• Distinction between methods & techniques of data
collection and data analysis
• Keep in mind that not all methods can be applied in all
stages of the UCD
• Distinction between qualitative and quantitative research
• Working with experts or with (representatives of) “real”
end-users
• Is it a within- or between user study?
• Doing research in the proper context
(field-based vs. laboratory based research)

34
Techniques e.g.:
Qualitative
Focus groups
Interviews
Observation
Thinking aloud
Questionnaires
Screen logging
Eye tracking
Performance analysis
Quantitative
Analyse
Requirements
Produce Design
Solutions
Conceptual
Design
& Prototype
Final Design
& Prototype
Interim
Designs &
Prototypes
Identify the
need for
user-centred
design
Design
satisfies
requirements
Evaluate Designs
Testing with
representative
users
input
Business
User
Use contexts Tasks
Method = User Centered Design
(of geospatial data processing and dissemination systems)

35
Requirements Analysis
Evaluate early design
Evaluate elaborate design
User feedback
Focus groups
Brainstorm sessions
Interviews
Surveys & questionnaires
Stakeholder meetings
Literature review
Card sorting
...
Paper prototype
Storyboarding
Heuristic evaluation
Automated evaluation
Wizard of Oz
Thinking aloud
Eye tracking
Card sorting
Cognitive walkthrough
....
Performance testing
User satisfaction
Heuristic evaluation
Cognitive walkthrough
Functional prototyping
Critical incidents
Logging user interactions
....
Questionnaires
User satisfaction
Logging user interactions
Observations
Diary keeping
...

36
• Involving (representatives of) “real” users:
– Surveys & questionnaires
– Interviews
– Focus groups / stakeholder meetings
– Observation: logging user activities (including tracking, video, screen
logging)
– Eye-movement tracking
– Thinking aloud
– Participatory design
• Involving experts (not the users themselves):
– Heuristic evaluation / usability inspection
– Cognitive walkthrough
• Theory based
– Automated evaluation
– Scenario-based design
– Secondary sources

37
Method Similar or Related Methods
Expert-based
heuristic evaluation rulesof thumb
conformity inspection feature inspection, consistency inspection, standards inspection,
guideline checklist
cognitive walkthroughs pluralistic walkthroughs, prototyping, storyboarding, Wizard of Oz
Theory-based
scenario-based design personas, scenarios of use, use case, context of use, theatre
secondary sources contentanalysis, competitive analysis
automated evaluation automated interaction logs, unmoderated user-based
methods
User-based
participant observation ethnographies, field observation, MILCs, journal/diary sessions,
screenshot captures
surveys questionnaires, entry/exit surveys, blind voting, cognitive workload
assessment
interviews structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, unstructured
interviews, contextual inquiry
focus groups supportive evaluation
Delphi
card sorting Q methodology, conceptmapping, aflnity diagramming, brainstorming
talk/think aloud verbal protocol analysis, co-discovery study
interaction study performance measurement,controlled experiments

38
Good when there are multiple components of an interface requiring the same
look/feel, when diVerent teams of designers are working on diVerent compo-
nents of the application, when there are established design standards and con-
ventions, when a work domain analysis has been completed.
Poor when the evaluation goal is to brainstorm potential usability issues rather
than ensure the interface meets certain requirements, when the project consists
of only several people working together closely, when there is little or no prec-
edent on how a novel interface should look and behave.
Tip for Cartography: While there are few cartographic interface design stan-
dards, the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) has developed several guidelines
and standards for the use and dissemination of geographic information.
Conformity Assessment
Conformity assessment requires experts to determine if the inter-
face passes a set of requirements, such as a pre-determined feature
list, design standards and conventions, or in-house specifications.
Good when input/feedback is needed quickly, when only a small set of
experts are available, when used for several rounds of expert evaluation,
when designers/developers are interested in uncovering a broad range
of interface issues.
Poor when expert consultants are unavailable or expensive, when the
experts are part of the project team, when targeting a specific kind of
interface problem, when one or more of the heuristics is not relevant to
the goals of interface evaluation, when there is excessive subjectivity in
interpreting the heuristics.
Tip for Cartography: It is important that the experts performing the heu-
ristic evaluation have experience in both Interactive Cartography and
Usability Engineering; such restrictions may prohibitively narrow the pool
of available experts.
Heuristic Evaluation
Heuristic evaluation requires experts to summarize
potential usability and utility issues with an inter-
face according to a pre-determined set of heuris-
tics, or well-accepted cartographic interface design
principles.
Cognitive
Walkthroughs
A cognitive walkthrough is the most 'hands-on' of
the expert-based methods, as the expert must
assume the role of the user and complete a set of
tasks in the anticipated way that the user would
perform them.
Good when the characteristics/behaviors of
the targeted end users are well understood,
when the expert has a great deal of experi-
ence working with users, when there is not
enough time to study users firsthand, when
the tasks included in the walkthrough repre-
sent real-world work objectives well, when
multiple steps must be completed in order to
use the interface, when only paper mockups
are available.
Poor when experts are not familiar with
the user group, when the tasks are
ill-defined, open-ended, or have multiple
solutions, when the research design is
not informed by a study with users.
(1) Expert-based Methods
Expert-based methods solicit input and
feedback about a cartographic interface
from consultants with training and experi-
ence in cartographic interface design and
evaluation.
Tip for Cartography: It may be best to
include experts and users together (i.e., a
pluralistic walkthrough), as interactive
map use often is exploratory and open-
ended, making it diflcult for experts to
predict suboptimal interaction strategies
on their own.

Good when the goal is to improve and stablize source code, when
long-term interface support is needed after deployment, when the
fully-featured interface serves a large user community, when
resources are limited to complete multiple rounds of user-based
studies.
Poor when the interface is unique or novel, when the the usability
measures for a specific type of application are poorly established,
when the interface is simple and includes only several features.
Automated Evaluation
With automated evaluation, usability and utility mea-
sures are generated programmatically by applying
specialized computer algorithms
Secondary Sources
A secondary source is any piece of information not col-
lected by the party using the information, and includes
text documents, maps/images, and softwareapplications.
Good when the designers/developers know little about the application
domain, when a user-based work domain analysis cannot be com-
pleted, at the formative stage of design and development, when there
are a large number of competing applications that implement similar
functionality, when there were multiple previous versions of the inter-
face.
Poor when the interface is designed to support a wide variety of appli-
cation domains, when the interface is the first of its kind and has few
extant parallels for comparison, when a robust work domain analysis
already was completed, when at the final stages of development.
Tip for Cartography: Secondary sources are useful for understanding
what types of questions or tasks should be included in future user-
based studies (particularly for an initial work domain analysis).
Scenario-based
Design
Scenario-based design makes the expected
uses of an interface explicit through the de-
scription of a scenario, or story consisting of
a problem setting, the interfaces available
in the setting, and personas of the expected
users of the interfaces.
Good when a work domain analysis
cannot be completed due to limited
resources or poor user accessibility,
when actual use scenarios are well
known or validated through user
studies, when the interface needs to
support a diverse set of users or objec-
tives, when expert- or user-based
studies relying on tasks are conducted
at later stages in design/development,
when the project team is large
Poor when little is known about the
users, when the scenarios are not vali-
dated with user-based studies, when
the scenarios are overly simplistic or
include only a subset of the complete
set of potential users or objectives,
when an interface is in the final stages
of development.
(2) Theory-based Methods
Theory-based methods require the interface
designers and developers to evaluate the
cartographic interface themselves by apply-
ing theoretical frameworks and guidelines
established through scientific research.
Tip for Cartography: Background
knowledge in Geography is important
for good scenario-based design, as the
designers/developers need to under-
stand the geographic phenomena rep-
resented in the interactive map when
drafting the hypothetical scenario.
Tip for Cartography: When the cartographic interface is
designed for use by a diverse set of users, automated
evaluation can be used to initiate changes in the interface
according to past use; simple examples of such adaptive
interfaces include ranking of items by 'most viewed' or
adjusting default tool parameters according to the most
frequent selections.

Focus Groups
The focus group is the
multi-person equivalent to
the interview, where a
group of targeted end
users (3-10) discuss topics
posed by a session
moderator.
Good when the user needs and expectations
are poorly known, when investigators have
access to a intermediate number of users and
stakeholders (more than required for interviews,
but much less than required for surveys), when
the focus of summative evaluation is user
satisfaction, when the investigators do not have
time to complete interviews.
Poor when the participants are not rep-
resentative of the target users, when
the user group is diverse, when investi-
gators have limited time to perform the
evaluation and analyze the results.
Tip for Cartography: The interviews
may benefit from having users provide
map examples from discussion during
the interviews or from having partici-
pants demonstrate their software to
clarify the interview discussion.
Interviews
An interview is a purposeful conversa- tion
between the evaluator and user in which the
user answers a series of structured and
unstructured questions.
Good when the user needs and expectations are poorly
known, when the software supports a small number of
highly-specialized users or stakeholders, when transition- ing an
interface to a new application domain.
Surveys
The survey method requires partici-
pants to respond to a series of prede-
termined, typically structured ques-
tions with no investigator interaction.
Good when input is required from a large number of
diverse users, when characteristics of the targeted
audience are not fully known, when the investigators
cannot be present physically to adminster the evalua-
tion, when the participants have very little time to pro-
vide feedback.
Poor when important design decisions are based
soley upon the results, when the investigators are
unfamiliar with the user objectives or expectations
and therefore do not know what questions to ask,
when access to end users is limited, when users are
asked to recall experiences or usage strategies
from a significant amount of time prior to taking
the survey.
Tip for Cartography: Surveys for cartographic
interface evaluation should include questions spe-
cific to both cartographic representation (i.e., the
design of the maps themselves) and cartographic
interaction.
daily work in order to generated an ethnog-
raphy, or comprehensive narrative of the
way in which the interface is used in practice.
Good when evaluators have excellent access to users, when
evaluators want to build a strong connection with a particular
set of users, when information is needed about how users cur-
rently work, when the project is large with design/development
spanning multiple years, when the interface or a previous ver-
sion of the interface already is in used.
Poor when access to users is limited, when users are diverse in
their characteristics or application domain, when users are dis-
persed geographically, when feedback is needed quickly, when
the interface is simple or supports few tasks.
Tip for Cartography: Participant observation may not be an efl-
cient use of resources, as cartographic interfaces are often a
single step in a larger workflow that includes many, non-
cartographic applications.
Participant Observation
In participant observation, evaluators watch
users interact with the interface during their
(3) User-based Methods
User-based methods solicit input and
feedback about a cartographic inter-
face from a representative sample of
targeted end users; administration of
user-based methods is fundamental to a
user-centered design approach and the
only way to ensure success of the
cartographic interface.
Poor when access to users is limited, when users are
diverse in their characteristics or application domain,
when users are dispersed geographically, when
feedback is needed quickly, when the interface is simple
or supports few tasks.
Tip for Cartography: Focus groups may benefit from
including a mixture of map mapmakers and map users
in each session.

In this method, users are guided through a series of
benchmark tasks by a session moderator and
instructed to describe verbally either what they are
doing (talk aloud) or what they are thinking (think
aloud).
Good when evaluators are interested in identifying a
broad range of usability issues, when feedback is
required quickly on only the most important
problems, when project resources are limited, when
there are multiple ways to complete the same
objective.
Poor when the tasks the interface should sup-
port are poorly known, when the participants
are not representative of the target audience,
when each task requires a large amount of
time to complete, when evaluators are more
interested in utility than usability, when par-
ticipants are already familiar with the interface.
Tip for Cartography: Because most people
interact with maps in an unstructured way, it is
important that the task protocol includes both
close-ended, simple tasks with a 'right answer'
as well as open-ended, exploratory tasks that
may lead to divergent solutions.
Card
Sorting
Card sorting is an activity in
which participants group a
given set of items, or cards,
according to their similar-
ity.
Good when there are a large set of
functions included in the interface
(between 30-200) or these func-
tions include a large set of param-
eters, when the optimal categori-
zation or structure is not currently
known, when an existing categori-
zation resulted in usability issues
and needs to be revised, when the
interface requires a large amount
of navigation among multiple
pages or menus.
Poor when the set of items is small (less
than 30) or extremely large (200+),
when the goal is to refine a single fea-
ture in the interface, when users can
customize the layout/organization of
the interface.
Tip for Cartography: The card sorting
technique is particularly promising for
hierarchically grouping feature types
and associated map symbols in an ex-
pandable, interactive legend.
Delphi
The Delphi method is a distrib-
uted approach to focus groups
that collects multiple rounds of
anonymous feedback, with
moderator summaries distrib
uted between rounds.
Good when the interfaces and the problems
they support are extremely complex, when the
users are geographically dispersed or the feed-
back needs to be collected online, when the
superiors of one or more users also are
included in the group communication.
Poor when the feedback is required quickly,
when there is not a team member available to
moderate the sessions, when users have little
personal investment in the tool (as there may
be a high drop out rate over time).
Tip for Cartography: It may be useful to
anchor the discussion threads to an interactive
map using asynchronous/diVerent-place geo-
collaboration and geodeliberation techniques.
Good when the project spans multiple years and includes itera-
tive rounds of interaction studies, when the kind of interface
evaluated has an established optimal score in the applied per-
formance measures, when evaluators are interested both in ex-
panding the understanding of interactive cartography broadly
as well as improving the cartographic interface specifically.
Poor when user objectives are not known, when time and
resources are lacking to collect and analyze the copious interac-
tion logs, when the performance measures poorly support the
evaluation goals, when evaluators are interested in capturing
subjective satisfaction.
Tip for Cartography: In addition to the interaction log, informa-
tion about the user’s eye movements also can be captured
during an interaction study.
Interaction Study
Interaction studies require users to complete a set
of benchmark tasks with the interface in a con-
trolled setting while their interactions are cap-
tured in an interaction log.
Talk-Aloud &
Think Aloud
(3) User-based Methods
User-based methods solicit input and
feedback about a cartographic inter-
face from a representative sample of
targeted end users; administration of
user-based methods is fundamental to
a user-centered design approach and
the only way to ensure success of the
cartographic interface.

Learning from each other...
• Input from audience
– Who did user research?
– Describe background
– Decisions you had to make (select technique, find participants,...)
– Issues you encountered
– ....
42

How many users?!
• Depending on technique
– Data = Qualitative or Quantitative?
n5 participants... n , SD, z, ẋ,...
• How many user groups?
– Evaluate user characteristics (between user)
• Multiple groups, different characteristics
– Evaluate different products (within user)
• Multiple groups, same characteristics
43
Qualitative analyses on...
Focus Groups
Thinking aloud
Observations
Statistical analyses on....
Performance measurements
Questionnaires Eye tracking

44
• Use contexts: e.g. map use environment
– hard copy maps:
• as wall map, on the desk top, in the field, ….
– screen maps:
• on the desk top, on handheld mobile devices
• stand-alone or network application
(e.g. Internet)
• hard- and software available, interfaces
• use at one place or distributed collaboration …
44

45
• New user environments
– World Wide Web
Web maps, WMS, distributed GIS, GDI’s
– Mobile & wireless devices
Smartphones, PDA’s, Pocket PC’s … with location aware
applications (LBS)
– small screens
– low resolution
– few colours
– small data files
45

Thank you for your attention!
Contact:
kristien.ooms@ugent.be
http://use.icaci.org

2016 iccgis module1_methods_andtechniques

More Related Content

Similar to 2016 iccgis module1_methods_andtechniques (20)

More from UUUI ICA (9)

Recently uploaded (20)

2016 iccgis module1_methods_andtechniques