GIS on the web is OK….sometimes
Something caught my eye the other day – it was a tweet about the usability of GeoExt as toolkit for building web mapping applications.
In the past couple of years it’s been popular to criticise web mapping applications which were\are designed based upon the expectations of desktop GIS users. Before we all jump on the band wagon we should remember that these were expectations built by the GIS industry advancing towards the web – vendors sold server software based upon the ability to share the power of GIS to the masses. Many of these applications were built by those that now openly criticise them. In some cases their critique has been justified based upon a failure to captivate a larger audience with these applications.
In the past 5 years in the GIS industry we’ve measured our success perhaps most frequently against Google Maps – have you ever heard a client or customer say “I want it to be as simple as Google Maps”? When we use Google Maps as our measuring stick we are looking at an application which has had universal success. However in our rush to disparage the last 10 years of web mapping applications in favour of simpler more targeted applications have we forgotten something which is valued?
Geographic Information Systems
Much of the criticism levelled at these ‘old school’ web mapping applications is justified and in my opinion directly caused by a belief that it was the duty of GIS teams to produce solutions we spent hours building endless applications which would fulfil the needs of our users, many of them with shocking user experiences. Driving these applications was a demand, a demand for tools to allow people to do their jobs more effectively, for these people, the applications are not GIS applications but a means to an end – in many cases whilst our newly found love affair with the aestheticly desirable make these applications seem tired, cumbersome, and overloaded, they are still used and useful to many people outside our own little world.
These applications in my mind are Geographic Information Systems – they are applications often dedicated to the sharing of spatial information and tooling – they may have business specific tooling incorporated, but they remain essentially, at their core, GIS. Discounting these applications in some way is discounting the usefulness of GIS (irrespective of their relative user friendliness). Personnally I hate the classic table of contents, I hate the fact that some people put search interfaces on top of table of contents! There are so many things I hate about these traditional GIS user interface elements, but my objections often stem from these elements being a barrier to wider adoption. My mother for example would be lost if I asked her to ‘select’ something on a map – but my mother isn’t using these applications.
There are many faults in these all encompassing monolithic web mapping applications – however I’m not convinced that the rise in replacement applications are improving the users lot. Are they essentially putting lipstick on the pig? Ensuring the application has rich capability may in fact be a valid use case based upon the needs of your audience, don’t then remove it or replace it with glitter because you can! I don’t think it is unreasonable to discount the prospect of applications that were once the domain of the desktop being available within a browser, on the other hand its not always necessary or sensible to have everything in there!
Targetted & Disposable mapping applications
The nature in which large organisations deliver and implement systems has to change – our expectations of how we interact with software is changing, think about how disposable an application is on your phone, I have downloaded applications, used them and disposed of them within the duration of a train journey home from work. Any system which takes two years to roll out is a system and an organisation which is failing. These new ‘disposable’ applications often have less scope, are targetted towards the presentation of information in such a way as to deal with a smaller problem space. They are clear, uncluttered and aestheticly well designed.
The very nature of IT System procurement and implementation can shape the outcome – the tendency towards building the all encompassing application can be caused by a desire to have a solution in place for x number of years – a solution which will satisfy all ‘stakeholders’ – a solution which is built around a strategy of expansion and compromise. The days of expensive web mapping frameworks is over (or at least it should be) – there’s nothing wrong with a web mapping framework which delivers configuration, ease of administration and rich GIS tooling, but don’t pay through the nose for it – why – because they have a limited audience and lifespan.
A good recent example of an web mapping application in this space is the Atlas of NSW. The first thing I like about this site is its name – its an Atlas – no fussy “geo-bollocks-portal’ nonsense – nice and simple – everyone knows what at Atlas is! I also like the way it makes decisions for the the user, you’re not overloaded with too much, you can change a map and but you don’t need to understand anything about layers. Even simple things like the extent of the map when the application starts is correct – this is a map about New South Wales so they don’t start the map at a scale showing the whole of Australia.
Information Systems
The Atlas of NSW application demonstrates a web mapping application which is centred on the map – I like this but it’s a very map centric view of information. There is a growing number of ways in which data can be presented and visualised and mapping is just one of these. That phrase ‘spatial is special’ is naval gazing tripe and more recently I’ve seen great sites which treat spatial information no differently to other data, these sites use maps as one mechanism to guide the user through a story. This is a much more developed view of information where presentation does not take precedence. I heard a great comment last week about letting the data speak for itself – I thought it was a wonderful way of describing what we should do more of. A couple of nice examples of sites which are taking this approach of combining maps into a broader information system are the NAI Violence against Journalism in Afghanistan site and the National Broadband Map site.
There’s certainly a move towards using maps as a visualisation mechanism in broader information systems and thankfully traditional mapping applications are moving past *Portals* and “GeoGuff* sites into something a whole lot more palatable for anybody to understand and use, but lets not get swept up and totally dismiss the use case for Geographical Information Systems and yes – sometimes its Ok to do this stuff in a browser, have tools on a toolbar and a table of contents (….I can’t believe I’m saying this!)
Methodology Smells
In this post I’d like to provide some guidance when selecting consultants to do your project work, specifically I’d like to discuss the various methodologies that consultants say they adopt when delivering projects. First off I’ve got to admit (..before I start ranting) that I’ve spent a number of years with my head lodged firmly up my own fundement with regards to software delivery process and methodology, and it’s only now that I may write with some perspective, my true thoughts on process.
Generally when engaging with consultants the matter of how the work will be delivered will be discussed. This, after all is an important criteria in your assessment of suitability, however the following points are aimed at shining a light on some of the things you may wish to look for, and avoid when making an assessment:
…things to avoid….
Tripe
I recently read the following from a ‘leading’ consultancy (…isn’t it funny how many consultancies are ‘leading’ – perhaps this will be the focus of another post – what does it really mean to be ‘leading’?)
Included in <<X methodology>> is the detailed <<X>> Information Management and Performance Management Framework specific to the delivery of Performance Management strategy and solutions and the underlying Information Management structure a pre-requisite for effective Performance Management.
God knows what this means! Frustratingly, bloated consultancies and their tripe marketing departments churn this nonsense out by the bucket load. Alas some poor soul will find themselves sucked in by this, perhaps because they’ve been reading about other ‘pre-requisites’ which are apparently required? In fact much of this methodology bullshit is built upon a basic fear factor. You must do ‘this and that’ or several horrific things will happen to your project. If you don’t pay the exorbitant daily rate for an individual who happens to know how to open Microsoft Project (..and who will help you conquer these many pre-requisites) hell will open its gates and swallow your project up whole! In many cases you’ll find that your $$ will translate to more documents littered with nonsensical language which will sit on your shelves for ever more and will have no bearing on the success of your project. This is classic methodology tripe, if you happen to like your tripe then suck it up.
Diagrams
Its almost unheard of that a methodology doesn’t include a complex diagram of some sort – the trend seems to be the more exotic and incomprehensible the diagram the more valuable the methodology, or so we would be lead to believe. These diagrams are aimed at trying to take the complex and distill it down into a single sheet of A4, a quick view on how it will all work, but software projects in particular are simply not like that. I can’t remember a single project I’ve ever worked on which fit neatly into one of these diagrams. Don’t be fooled by them, whilst diagrams are a useful way to illustrate a process – they should be taken as such and certainly not viewed as a sign of process maturity.
My *favourite* diagrams are those that involve wheels….you know you’ve got a winner when they design a process around a wheel.
Zeitgeist
Many software delivery methodologies are reactions against the status quo. Many are justified reactions based upon existing processes not working, however with each new methodology comes a flurry of consultants jumping on the band wagon, promising a ‘new and improved’ way of doing things – don’t ignore this, just apply caution, and like any good analysis, scratch the surface a little and find out just how much reality is behind the claim. For example I’ve been amazed by how many interviews I’ve conducted in the past couple of years where the interviewee has claimed experience of agile methodologies yet when probed have demonstrated very little understanding – like any skill, claiming experience and expertise in the use of a process or methodology should be carefully assessed.
Hybrids
“We took the best of breed…”
This sort of statement can often be attributed to methodology fashionistas (see zeitgeist above). I’m not a big fan of hybrid methodologies. A consultancy putting forward a hybrid methodology is, I suspect a consultancy trying to placate conflicting camps and too inexperienced or unsuccessful to base their approach on a single proven method. I’m sorry, but I find it tough to understand how waterfall and an agile approach can be used on the same project. I’m sorry I don’t think that story boards and burn downs sit neatly alongside GANTT charts. To me hybrids smell of confusion and I would steer well clear.
…….look for and remember……
A means to an end
As I mentioned I have spent some time being a little process obsessed and at times I’ve lost perspective on what it is I was actually aiming to do – choosing the right process is important but ensuring that it doesn’t own you is as important. There are two parts of the agile manifesto which I really relate to:
- Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
- Responding to change over following a plan
To some extent I think some agile practitioners have forgotten the first statement above – that the doctrine of Scrum or Kanban (..or whatever) has become more important than people or communication. Or the use of a particular piece of tooling has strongly dictated how a piece of software is delivered. The second statement means so much to me because its simply reflects delivery reality – things change. Look for a methodology which can react well to change and avoid those which take no account of change or perhaps view change as something which should be penalised.
Demand failure
Critical to any good methodology is an understanding of failure – I think its invaluable for any consultant to have an appreciation of their methodology based upon hard experiences. Ask the question ‘Have you ever found yourself in the trouble on a project?’ Ignore people who lie and say no, but listen carefully to when people are truthful and follow up by asking whether a process or methodology helped them and why.
Don’t Scrimp
I may sound like I’m bagging process, but that’s not the case, I’m bagging waste! You want your project to be successful. Without a path to follow it will be a very strange experience. Honestly ask yourself about where a process will and won’t add value, think of your past project experiences. Think about the many projects that were started and never finished and ask what could been done differently and what could help this time around. The software landscape changes so frequently that it’s almost impossible to consider a static approach which fits this ever changing picture. One size does not fit all and the nature of your project will dictate the nature of the process needed to see it delivered. Its fascinating to see the changing way in which new technology is being rapidly delivered to clients, using a much greater degree of client engagement, multi-disciplinary teams and a general adoption of leaner and meaner approaches – understand how it can help you and take advantage of it.
Scars
Earlier this year I read Rework by the 37Signals folks and the other day I remembered a chapter – ‘Don’t scar on the first cut’. The basic premise of this lesson is about policy…
‘The second something goes wrong, the natural tendency is to create a policy. “Someone’s wearing shorts!? We need a dress code!”. No, you don’t. You just need to tell John not to wear shorts. Policies are organisational scar tissue.”
The reason I thought of this was that Service Level Agreements had come up in a conversation and I thought to myself – something is up if there needs to be an SLA between teams that are co-located. Teams that work in the same space should be working together rather than putting in place some psuedo ruleset that pits one team against the other – that approach is a slippery slide to dysfunction.
When you find yourself talking about SLA’s step back and think about whether you really want to go down that line – try having a chat with your colleagues and take each issue one at a time. As Fried and Hansson say;
‘No one sets out to create a bureaucracy. They sneak up on companies slowly. They are created one policy – one scar – at a time’
It does what it says on the tin
I’m fully impressed!
A mate of mine has been making some suggestions to the OpenGeo team about their latest OpenGeo Suite Community Edition – they listened, asked for his input and released new functionality all within the space of a few days – this is agility at its best!
There’s so much that is right about this story:
1. A dude spoke up with a legitimate use case and someone real was listening
2. They talked about the idea and recorded the process openly
3. They implemented the change and released quickly
The willingness to listen, the ability to evaluate a good idea and quickly release something usable is an impressive level of service, and one OpenGeo should be proud of. On their getSatisfaction site it says ‘OpenGeo employees are here to help’. Simple, no need for anything else – it’s just true.
It seems this sort of thing is all the rage these days.
PS. In the same thread there’s a link to a nice clean community edition site which is well worth a look
Pusherman
Paul is back on the attack – this time he’s likening proprietary software to crack. Brilliant
It’s worth taking Paul’s analogy a bit further. Being an open source ‘evangelist’ he believes that proprietary software is bad for you. The two main points he makes are:
1. Proprietary software is pushed onto unsuspecting audiences by software vendors
2. Proprietary software is addictive
Lets take the second point first. People generally get addicted to a drug for a number of reasons such as;
a) their conditions
b) something in the drug is physically addictive (e.g. nicotine in cigarettes)
c) they enjoy it
Software is not dissimilar. People go with proprietary products because of their environment – they may work for an organisation which has made an investment in a particular product, or they may select a proprietary product because they feel comfortable with it – not necessarily because of actual familiarity with the product, but often because it seems more familiar or it seems less risky than other options. Sometimes proprietary products include something addictive – data lock in is a good example, once you’re using format X is very difficult to move away from it. Finally people often use proprietary products because it is good at what it does. It’s a tool which helps them get their job done – I’m not saying that there are not issues with proprietary products but to not accept that they are competitive is naive.
The first issue, that proprietary software is pushed onto unsuspecting audiences by software vendors is not new. This happens everywhere – just this morning I walked out of the train station and a new brand of yoghurt was pushed into my hand. Free samples of this and that are given away by companies intentionally to get you interested, to get you hooked – this is marketing! What’s wrong with this? I think Paul makes this point because he’s an open source geek and open source geek’s generally don’t get marketing – they see straight through it. They view their non-geek ‘express’ users colleagues as helpless against the evil ‘pusherman’ whose marketing mechanisms lure them in and gets them hooked. But is this an accurate picture – I didn’t particularly like my free sample yoghurt. I certainly won’t be buying any. People do have the ability to make informed choices – some more than others, and they make these choices based upon many factors.
People are interested in the ‘express’ editions because on the surface of it the marketing works on them, they’re familiar with the brand and are attracted by the ‘free’ carrot dangling from the end of the stick. Open Source software starts from that position – it’s already free so open source projects need another carrot to get us hooked. I think Paul needs to get Marlo Stansfield on our asses - you gotta get in the game bro – you’ve got to convince us your crack is better, gets you higher quicker and lasts longer……and like any great drug it doesn’t have any nasty side effects. Alternatively you could develop a 12 step program to help those of us who are addicted to sucking on that pipe.