ents taking place in the evoof GIS appears to be underoment, both technologically
e of these changes almost
things (in sorne cases, more
ments) rather than the introhniques. For example, in the
proprietary systems, GIS softith a wide array of utilities
but as separate modules, so
ols required for a particular
n came the more integrated
ctions were provided within
, whether they were required
tably stuck with the weakected, as weIl as its strengths.
relevant, since (as is often
ped GIS have been designed
ther th an coastal or marine
-or-less forced to use tools
or the specific application(s)
owards the toolbox approach
y" concept. The bricks in a
a "Lego" set, we find many
number of more specialized
pecific, each piece has been
il and, in this way, can be
the chi Id wishes. Similarly,
encouraging software devees that "plug into" a core set
new approach, people will
heir own custom-built geoheir specific needs and appliten be undertaken for the
termediaries who are expert
he elements in these customtandards but, by integrating
, we will be able to harness
ese separate tools (including
ted and specialized coastal
resentations made at this
d we already can see clear
of such approaches.
Conclusion
Making GIS more user-friendly
On the wider stage, there has been much discussion, and development
effort, devoted to making GIS more user-friendly. The means of achieving
this has been a frequent topic for debate in many GIS-related meetings and
on-li ne discussion groups in recent years. The main concern here is to
make GIS more accessible and th us optimise effective GIS use, because GIS
is still often seen as being very complex. While these are important
matters, are we approaching the problem from the right direction?
Should we be trying to make GIS more user-friendly? Perhaps we
should accept that GIS will always be inherently complex, since the
systems are designed and developed to help us manage geographical
complexity, and instead concentrate on providing appropriate training
and education for users, in order to better equip them to use the technologies available. If not carefully thought-out and executed, enhancing
user-friendliness couid run the risk of coming perilously close to a
"dumbing down" of GIS.
Institutional questions
We also need to consider the type of role that GIS is expected to fulfil
within an organization, because this is yet another area where changes
seem to be in progress. If we look at the early years of GIS, most of the
pioneering systems tended to fulfil one of two primary functions, namely
the digital production of maps on the one hand, and adding spatial
search and retrieval functionality to databases on the other. In many
contexts, GIS is still used for digital cartography, or as a means of storing,
retrieving and displaying data using geography as the primary search
mechanism. However, there is a move now beyond such uses, towards
more integrated and advanced decision-support systems, where the GIS
is actually helping decision-makers plan strategies and undertake other
policy-making tasks. Going even beyond this important step, there is
evidence that GIS is becoming increasingly adopted as part of a much
wider scientific research methodology: this was particularly demonstrated in a number of presentations from our French colleagues at this
meeting, where we saw GIS being used as an aid to better understanding
of coastal processes, and other phenomena.
Standards
Somebody once said, rather cynically perhaps, that "the nice thing
about standards is that there are so many to choose from"! We have heard
much discussion here about standards. We were told how the researchers
were faced with a choice between American and European standards
for metadata, and in the end decided to take a hybrid. While it is aIl
too clear why such a decision might be taken, one also wonders whether
a hybrid between two standards is not rather defeating the purpose of
having these standards in the first place? If the standards are not good
enough, then perhaps they need revisiting and reassessment or revision.
That is another question, but if we have standards, we should make
every endeavour to adhere to them.
309
e of these changes almost
things (in sorne cases, more
ments) rather than the introhniques. For example, in the
proprietary systems, GIS softith a wide array of utilities
but as separate modules, so
ols required for a particular
n came the more integrated
ctions were provided within
, whether they were required
tably stuck with the weakected, as weIl as its strengths.
relevant, since (as is often
ped GIS have been designed
ther th an coastal or marine
-or-less forced to use tools
or the specific application(s)
owards the toolbox approach
y" concept. The bricks in a
a "Lego" set, we find many
number of more specialized
pecific, each piece has been
il and, in this way, can be
the chi Id wishes. Similarly,
encouraging software devees that "plug into" a core set
new approach, people will
heir own custom-built geoheir specific needs and appliten be undertaken for the
termediaries who are expert
he elements in these customtandards but, by integrating
, we will be able to harness
ese separate tools (including
ted and specialized coastal
resentations made at this
d we already can see clear
of such approaches.
Conclusion
Making GIS more user-friendly
On the wider stage, there has been much discussion, and development
effort, devoted to making GIS more user-friendly. The means of achieving
this has been a frequent topic for debate in many GIS-related meetings and
on-li ne discussion groups in recent years. The main concern here is to
make GIS more accessible and th us optimise effective GIS use, because GIS
is still often seen as being very complex. While these are important
matters, are we approaching the problem from the right direction?
Should we be trying to make GIS more user-friendly? Perhaps we
should accept that GIS will always be inherently complex, since the
systems are designed and developed to help us manage geographical
complexity, and instead concentrate on providing appropriate training
and education for users, in order to better equip them to use the technologies available. If not carefully thought-out and executed, enhancing
user-friendliness couid run the risk of coming perilously close to a
"dumbing down" of GIS.
Institutional questions
We also need to consider the type of role that GIS is expected to fulfil
within an organization, because this is yet another area where changes
seem to be in progress. If we look at the early years of GIS, most of the
pioneering systems tended to fulfil one of two primary functions, namely
the digital production of maps on the one hand, and adding spatial
search and retrieval functionality to databases on the other. In many
contexts, GIS is still used for digital cartography, or as a means of storing,
retrieving and displaying data using geography as the primary search
mechanism. However, there is a move now beyond such uses, towards
more integrated and advanced decision-support systems, where the GIS
is actually helping decision-makers plan strategies and undertake other
policy-making tasks. Going even beyond this important step, there is
evidence that GIS is becoming increasingly adopted as part of a much
wider scientific research methodology: this was particularly demonstrated in a number of presentations from our French colleagues at this
meeting, where we saw GIS being used as an aid to better understanding
of coastal processes, and other phenomena.
Standards
Somebody once said, rather cynically perhaps, that "the nice thing
about standards is that there are so many to choose from"! We have heard
much discussion here about standards. We were told how the researchers
were faced with a choice between American and European standards
for metadata, and in the end decided to take a hybrid. While it is aIl
too clear why such a decision might be taken, one also wonders whether
a hybrid between two standards is not rather defeating the purpose of
having these standards in the first place? If the standards are not good
enough, then perhaps they need revisiting and reassessment or revision.
That is another question, but if we have standards, we should make
every endeavour to adhere to them.
309