GIS

The Paradox of GIS Simplicity

Many people talk about simplifying GIS and other geospatial tools today. This resulted from the realisation that some people were having to wade through large amounts of functionality embedded into software and hardware, much of which they personally did not feel that they used.

That evolved into many of these people voicing the opinion that the programs were too large, too complex and or required specialised people to operate them. This further extended to the observation that many tasks were not being completed due to the complexity, and that large amounts of time were needed to operate the programs. It also implied that non-specialised workers were unable to use the tools and thus disconnected from the work flows and processes where they were involved.

There is a paradox as this happened. Most software and hardware, if you are to believe press releases and other information emanating from companies and organisations, is designed and evolves from the users themselves.

That is - software and hardware are designed and delivered, based on customer feedback and user input.

Consequently, users have been participating in the complexity process - to date.

Each and every request for a new functionality, new service capability or higher level of operation, is effectively adding to already existing product design and extending it. Is it any wonder that products have become large and complex?

The Internet and cloud services are poised to deliver extended services derived through solving complex problems and to output simplified answers. These approaches only ask that you know what you are requesting. Then it can be processed, managed and delivered.

If we are to base our understanding on the use of cloud and other similar service approaches, then it would seem one of the goals for GIS folks would be to obtain simplified results without the added functionality (functions) usually available - you pay for what you get.

There is, of course, merit in this approach and it brings efficiency. But it also brings a series of homogenous answers to similar questions, each of these handled in a similar fashion. Thus it begs the question, has the table turned toward too much simplicity? If you don't know what to ask for in terms of functionality and operations, then you accept what is presented as the 'correct' answer.

Do you know of any GIS software today that specifically offers options on its server or cloud functionality? That is to say that the remote processing needs (would be useful) some sort of means to determine the 'smart' approach and offer users options and different approaches for answering their questions.

There is an assumption that people using cloud services know what they are using them for, especially for more detailed and intricate requirements. If we are saying that simplicity is the goal, then are we implying that less knowledge to use the services is the goal? Or, are we developing such services in a way that they have embedded intelligence and can operate regardless of the user?

Think back to the days when you worked with digital elevation data (DEM) on your desktop computer. It caused one to think about the data, why it could or could not be used and how it actually related to simple things like where a river floods, erosion moves, shadows are cast and the snow melts the latest.

What if your cloud service does not know much about snow? What if it does not really think about floods and water can run anywhere? What if it has no recollection of ice?

Push the button and stuff comes out... right?

Either the people using geospatial services today must have some kind of knowledge about their use of spatial data and information, or, those folks termed 'specialised' will be working pretty hard behind the scenes in the basement or silo or wherever, to automate them out of a job.

Or are they actually specialised now in their web service and cloud service use, but we don't want to say that?

The true value lies in processing the data. Ultimately, more functionality offers more value - potentially - and someone in the work flow knows this.

Related Posts

1. Of Shoes and Web Services in GIS
2. Which Geospatial Technologies Will 3D GIS Impact ?
3. Do you think GIS as we know it will “disappear” into the cloud?
4. Australia: Thesis — The Integration of Multi-source Spatial Datasets in the Context of SDI Initiatives
5. China Mapped Like Sim City
6. Books: GIS — Health, Learning ArcGIS and GIS Architecture
7. Mitsubishi Voice Activated Geospatial Touch Table
8. Education Wise — Is the GIS Desktop Better Than Cloud Oriented Architecture?
9. 3D GIS — Are Feature Properties the Glue That Binds CAD and GIS?
10. GIS: The Systems Part

© 2009 Vector One.