Outcome 2

We discovered different affordances among the applications.

Google Maps (My Maps) proved to be the mostversatile and robust for our project. It allowed usto navigate across the globe in a straightforwardmanner, to correct misplaced points quickly,differentiate academic level by color, and labelwith pertinent information. Google Maps (My Maps)also allowed us to choose a pointer specificallytailored to our information, in this case a pushpinin red (MS) or yellow (PhD).

Map Builder gives a large palette of pointer choice (color and size), but we discovered that locations are not easily plotted nor readily edited.

Wayfaring did not give a choice as to pointer type, which led us to reformat how we presented the descriptive information. While Wayfaring allowed us to plot our locations easily, it did not permit relocating a point. This application is designed to be used more as a route-planning function.

Cynthia Prosser & Monica PereiraScience Library, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602

Quick and Easy Map Mashups

Convey pertinent and relevant information or data.Meet unique information needs.Suited to using data already in extant.Provide a visual overview of area of interest.Create new relationships through synthesis.

Exploring the applications

We started by exploring various applications to determine the utility each offered. Fee based or free.Needed a sign-in.Help and tutorials available.Latitude and longitude.Geographical, geopolitical, and topological features available.Types of visuals and pointers.

A readily available set of data.Interest to the UGA research community.Relatively stable in that it increments predictably.Easily updated.

Methodology

After identifying the data, we needed to put it into a manageable format for the project. We parsed the bibliographic information from the titles of each thesis or dissertation: author, title, year, degree (MS or PhD), country location, geologic location, state, and region (as was appropriate or known). From this information, we plotted the field/sample site locations.

Conclusion:

From the outcomes of this project, we determined:Firm up data, plan of action, and choice of applications.Do a small pre-project to determine time used, data adjustments, and method and project feasibility.Distinct benefit to intensive and rigorous planning saves time in project implementation. Do not skimp on overall project planning.Working with the process and this technology have been eye-opening.

Outcome 3

The project turned out to be much bigger than anticipated. With approximately 438 field/sample sites to be interpreted and plotted, time became an issue; therefore, we only included a subset of the total number of thesis and dissertation field/sample sites. In Google Maps (My Maps), we included those from 1964-2000. In Wayfaring, we included the sites west of Mississippi River and the outlying global areas. In Map Builder, we only included sites from 1964-1970 for comparison.

Outcome 4 Translating 3D points onto a 2D surface reflects the ongoing challenge and dissatisfaction with dimensional representations. A recurring question was - “This field site is exactly, where?” We also came across authors whose field/sample sites were widely dispersed, e.g. Georgia (US) and Greece. How should that be represented? And then there is that quadrangle on Mars…

Outcome 5

A concomitant issue was that latitude and longitude would allow more precise plotting of locations, but none of the field/sample sites were mere points. The question remains of how to represent an area as a point. Google Maps (My Maps), Wayfaring, and Map Builder do not allow user defined areal dimensions as GIS applications would.

Outcome 6

Other considerations: Would these sites have been better located if we had had the thesis or dissertation in hand for reference?Would the potential ease of locating the site outweigh the time it would take to search each thesis or dissertation?

Outcome 7

Ultimately, we may have sacrificed specificity in favor of simply plotting a point.

Special thanks to the UGA Map Library for assistance in producing this poster.

© 2010Cynthia Prosser cprosser@uga.eduMonica Pereira pokey@uga.edu

Comparison of one data point in Google Maps (My Maps), Map Builder, & Wayfaring.

Outcome 1

Map mashup applications are relatively simple to use and we experienced a gentle learning curve using Google Maps, Wayfaring, and Map Builder. After reviewing the tutorial materials, we were inspired to start plotting our points. Introduction

Map mashups are increasingly popular for visually expressingspatial features. They are quick and simple to create withoutinvesting in a more powerful and formal GIS.

Also considered were the capabilities of the application, that is could it do whatwe needed it to do?

We decided to work with Google Maps (My Maps), Wayfaring, and Map Builder.

Choosing the Project

We investigated the applications to use, with a view to sharing our findings. Anothercriterion was that we wanted our project to be of academic interest.

To this end we considered several subjects using the World Wide Web. Some topics hadalready been done, others were too nebulous or difficult to define, while still others were event related and lacked stability.

We determined to use the Graduate student field and/or sample sites of the Departmentof Geology at the University of Georgia for the following reasons:

It also has several potential users including: alumni, prospective students, and theGeology Department itself.

This project satisfied our requirements to learn a new technology, to share ournew skills with our patron base, and to showcase a facet of our institution.