[OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Will there be an OSGeo Desktop shootout atFOSS4G 2010?

[Jody Garnett]

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) <scropper at 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: scropper at 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 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>