[GRASSLIST:4561] Re: GRASS Marketing

[Michael Barton]

I guess I'd have to both agree and disagree with you both on this. Your
point about the complexity of file types and knowledge needed to translate
geospatial data from one form to another is right on the money.

I also agree that there is always work to improve the user interface to a
complex program--and some of us take this goal very seriously. QGIS has a
very nice interface--though with some of its own drawbacks--but also take a
look at the interface to the CVS version of GRASS 5.7.

That said, I guess I don't see how the import could be any easier. Most
files import just as you wished for using Open Office as example, using gdal
(for raster) and ogr (for vector). Just specify the file to import, give it
a name in GRASS, and press run. There are some options available to deal
with those files with non-standard (such as it is) projection information,
but for most files it is JUST like Open Office. Having used a number of
other GIS programs, GRASS is both much easier for importing data and can
import a wider range of geospatial data than any other program I've used.
(Try to get a GLOBE DEM file into ArcView. It's doable, but takes
considerable 'secret' knowledge ;-).

I'm a Mac guy who detests command lines (though I know how to use them). I'm
sure that the rest of the real developers get a chuckle out of this.
However,  tonight, in prep for a presentation I'm giving in a week, I
produced I produced 2 overlayed 3D models with a cutting plane to exemplify
spatial comparisons; a moving window neighborhood analysis of vegetation
diversity from a landsat image; and a simulation of Holocene erosion in a
Spanish valley (also shown in 3D--or 2.5 D to be precise). I did all this
from the GRASS GUI. I also produced some simpler displays and, of course,
considerable analysis lies behind the displays. I don't know of any other
GIS where I could duplicate this diversity of geospatial output so quickly
and easily.

BUT I have spent a considerable time working with GIS and geospatial data,
and have invested a fair amount of time over the past year becoming familiar
with what GRASS is capable of. On the other hand, the same would be true of
using other sophisticated GIS/spatial technologies (It took at least that
long to become proficient with ArcView/ArcGIS). I wish such an investment
were not necessary, and hope that ongoing work will reduce the investment of
time and energy needed to do at least basic GIS work. But this is why
GIS--including the newest versions of GRASS 5.7--can appear completely
baffling to a new user who is quite competent with computer technology
otherwise (and could learn a new wordprocessor sufficiently well to write a
novel in a few hours at the most).

Note that this is much more than making a nice map. If that is the only
goal, it is more easily accomplished in a drawing program. GIS involves
integrating, querying, analyzing, and presenting information from very
diverse data models--including raster, vector, tablular, and volumetric each
of which have multiple permutations. GRASS already has a nice GUI very like
a word processor, with pull-down menus and dialog boxes. It will take much
more than this, however--new technologies and concepts in UI's--to make GIS
more accessible to a user base as broad as for spreadsheets. I for one think
this is imperative, as synergistic spatial technologies like GRASS have
extremely high (but greatly underused) potential across a great many fields.

If you indeed want to do GIS-based analysis of geospatial data, GRASS is
worth learning. I think that you can get at least as much bang for the time
you invest in learning GRASS as with any other powerful GIS. Much more bang
for the investment if you consider cost. If you need a more limited suite of
spatial tools, look at QGIS, JUMP GIS, and Thuban. By having more limited
capabilities, they are easier to use (although QGIS is becoming increasingly
powerful and, of course, increasingly complex).

Cheers,
Michael Barton

On 10/17/04 5:03 PM, "Matej Cepl" <cepl at surfbest.net> wrote:

> Chavoux Luyt wrote:
>>> If you're taking guidance from OpenOffice, look at the import filters.
>>> You open Writer, tell it to "Open..." an Excel or Word file, and it
>>> simply does. One need not specify that the Word document is 51.34
>>> pages long, contains 3000 words, 15 illustrations, and is formatted
>>> for 8.5 x 11" paper.
> 
> I am a newbie in whole GIS business myself, so I really understand a lot of
> what you are saying and tend to agree you a lot. And although I believe
> that GRASS could be *much* more user friendly than it is (especially import
> sucks, true), you seem to be comparing apples and oranges -- M$ Office
> style programs are dealing with much less complicated subject matter than
> GIS programs. In order to be able to use effectively Grass (or any other
> GIS program, ArcInfo included) you have to understand a lot of stuff
> (projections, etc.), which seems to be much higher barrier of entry into
> GIS world than bash scripting. And yes, GUI interface for Grass needs
> improving.
> 
> Matej

____________________
C. Michael Barton, Professor of Anthropology
School of Human, Cultural, and Social Change
PO Box 872402
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ  85287-2402
USA

Phone: 480-965-6262
Fax: 480-965-7671
www: <www.public.asu.edu/~cmbarton>