Hi Simon. In a FOSS4G tutorial we went through the desktop GIS applications included on the Live DVD and created the same map* in each one by way of introduction: - http://snapshots.dist.codehaus.org/udig/livedvd/
It was very educational for me and would probably create an excellent set of videos. Jody *The only exception is grass where Hydrologis was kind enough to provide an introduction using slightly different data. On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Simon Cropper (Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd) <scrop...@botanicusaustralia.com.au> wrote: > I agree with Stefan. > > I have found comparison tables of little use as the compiler has to > summarize what is probably quite complex routines. They rarely give a > potential user like myself the complete picture. > > My view has been that the only way to evaluate the usefulness of a program > is to use it on actual data trying to do actual things. > > I have tried multiple OS GIS packages and they all do different things in > different ways. Some useful some novel (to me). > > What really counts is if you can use one program to complete your normal > workflow without needing to use other packages. > > I am not saying that someone should not use multiple packages during their > normal work week only that you should be able to do your normal work without > having to transfer data (and half the time actually convert data) between > various packages to get what you need done. > > So from my point of view projects should not look at other projects, > developers should not list functionality of their program or any other > combination. Users should provide standard workflow tasks -- repetitive > tasks sequences they complete regularly. Then be asked to complete those > tasks on each of the programs being tested. Then the users rate ease of > setup, ease of use, suitability of output, support, etc. The actual list of > user experience ratings can be knocked up by an overview committee. This > committee could also vet the users who put their hand up to ensure a good > spectrum of users and tasks, from different sections of society (academic, > commercial, newbie) are all represented and no bias exists. > > If developers think this might be too harsh (as users may not fully > understand what is going on or how the program works), maybe a middle ground > would be that the developers submit a solution to these workflow processes. > The users follow these instructions and evaluate the outcome. This avoids > users baulking at some quite eccentric GUI interfaces or program setup > (solution must provide clear setup instructions for Windows and Linux). > These solutions are tried and reviewed by the user. The workflows, results, > comments and developer solutions can be collated onto one site (the OSGeo > site seems appropriate) as a valuable resource for developers and user > alike. > > Cheers Simon > > Simon Cropper > Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd > PO Box 160, Sunshine, Victoria 3020. > P: 9311 5822. M: 041 830 3437. > mailto: scrop...@botanicusaustralia.com.au > web: www.botanicusaustralia.com.au > > > Stefan Steiniger wrote: > > Hei all, > > thanks for Cameron on keeping me in the loop, and to Markus for > remembering :) I am now subscribed to this list. > > I think Pauls idea sounds interesting - because this whole comparison > thing is > a) quite cumbersome when we have 10 desktop GIS (+ X), and > b) neither really worth because desktop GIS are used for a multitude of > tasks, while web map Servers or databases aren't that much - right? > > So as Paul is quoted on the osgeo wiki: one needs to set up use cases > first (just wrote that today in a new article too, which contains a > section on selecting free GIS software). And I also discovered that just > most of the projects have a different focus during my evaluation. Which > of course does not mean that such thing should not be presented - but it > must be focussed in some way or the other to have a benefit. And as a > side note, I am not sure if measuring processing times makes sense > either, as GIS analysis feature sets are so different. > > However, I am in for testing with OpenJUMP. > > Two more notes: > - my comparison tables are now already 2 years old now (from 2007), i.e. > need some update (but the last pub in Ecological Informatics took into > account newer developments too, but is superficial and focused towards > the "average" GIS users). > - I gave a talk about this at OGRS: > http://www.ogrs2009.org/doku.php?id=keynotes > pdf can be downloaded from there. > > cheers from Germany right now (Xmas) > stefan > > PS: I know also of this comparison by T. Hengl et al. on Grass vs. SAGA > for Geomorphologic Analysis > http://www.igc.usp.br/pessoais/guano/downloads/Hengl_etal_2009_gmorph.pdf > > > Paul Ramsey schrieb: > > Interested in a different approach that is lower impact, but still > interesting and entertaining? Have developers review a "competing" > project and then present their findings, in the form of "What I love > about ___, what I hate about____". > > Jody Garnett presents "What I love about QGIS, what I hate about QGIS." > Jorge Sanz presents "What I love about uDig, what I hate about uDig." > Tim Sutton presents "What I love about gvSIG, what I hate about gvSIG." > > Not only do you get an unvarnished view, but you can have shorter > presentations with a discussion segment at the end of each one. > > Works for almost any application category too. > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss