Presentation to the IACG

I was in Ottawa earlier this week with Dan to present our groups work in web-mapping accessibility to date.  The represented agencies were Statistics Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Parks Canada and one more group which I am blanking on right now.   After a couple meetings with the IACG, it is apparent that each agency has chosen to tackle the web-mapping accessibility problem a bit differently, which I think will be useful for the IACG as we will all be able to contribute something different to the cause.  Technically we all have the same target audience, Canadian citizens, so I think our solutions have been based on the purpose of the web-mapping applications for each agency.

The importance of the purpose of the map was highlighted when I presented my thesis work to them as a point of interest.  There was a general consensus that in my study, I shouldn’t just be asking the participants to describe a map on its own, but I also need to supply the query options that were chosen in order to produce that map.  I agree wholeheartedly with this, and it has been a topic of numerous discussions with my research partner.  The reason I’ve decided to first gather some descriptions based on the map without the query options is because I’m going off very little ground work in this area (at least that I have been able to find so far)*.  I would like to start out with descriptions of just the map, and then follow up with gathering descriptions based on the map AND its query to see how they compare and contrast, which I think will give me that much more to go off of when analyzing the descriptions.  I feel like going straight to the map and its query is skipping a few steps, and canceling out options before exploring them properly.

It became clear after taking Steve’s course, and meticulously going over this study with Jon and Greg, that it’s tricky to design a solid research study…I guess I’m playing it safe and trying to cover all my bases.  I hope I’m not wasting time, as I’m pretty positive the descriptions gathered without the matching queries will be vague, but I want to avoid making assumptions if I can.

Nevertheless, the presentation went well and ignited some great discussion.  My extreme fear of presenting thanks the IACG group for keeping it casual and more of an open forum…if only they could all be like that

* The areas that I HAVE been able to find great research in are cartography, describing basic static images, and directional-based map accessibility.

IACG (Inter-Agency Committee on Geomatics)

We had our first IACG meeting recently, after our break from the summer. It reminded me yet again how interesting I find this web-mapping accessibility “problem” AND the fact that other people find it interesting too!

Two different groups gave presentations on the status of the web-mapping accessibility solution in their groups. It was nice to see that we are all basically on the same track. It was also clear that some departments have certain areas of strength and expertise that will definitely be helpful to draw upon.

We are splitting up into three different task forces to address specific problems regarding web-mapping accessibility:

1. To establish a set of best practices associated with developing accessible interfaces that deliver web-mapping for use on the World Wide Web.
2. To establish a set of best practices associated with the accessible description of map content delivered for use on the World Wide Web.
3. To provide a consultative forum for the federal geomatics community on accessible web-mapping issues.

I’ll be giving a presentation at next month’s meeting to share what EC has done with our web-mapping applications. Everyone seemed very interested in my research at uoft, so I will present that next month as well. It will give me a chance to strengthen my presentation skills…not something I enjoy flexing. I do think that the committee will take a lot from it, and probably contribute greatly as they are all the subject matter experts from various government agencies.

A Delightful Phone Conversation With Jeff Stark

I had a talk with Jeff Stark (EC’s accessibility go-to guy) a little while ago about the issues we are facing with web-mapping accessibility. Currently our development group has only really been concentrating on the map tools. Making sure all of the controls are accessible and usable. The next step I think will be to tackle accessing the points on the map, and stripping out the javascript.

The way we could present the point information will be interesting to tackle. Jeff was saying that Atlas Canada allows a user to enter a latitude and longitude or through entering place and feature names. I checked this out, and it seems to act like more of a quick zoom.  To actually interact with points on the map, you have to use the mouse.  This may be a useful technique to use with some of our maps in the future.  Though, as we use mostly thematic maps, the users of our maps will most likely not know the lat/long of the facility/monitoring station/point they are looking for…it is a nice feature though and something to keep in mind.

I think as users narrow their search, having the available points display in a data grid below the map would be useful. This was discussed within our team as a way to deal with the NPRI information, as in Alberta alone there over 4000 facilities that report pollutant information, and performance-wise that is a heavy load on the map, and also hinders usability.  We will see what comes out of the next iteration of our web-mapping template

In the meantime though, Jeff and his group will hopefully take a look at what we’ve done so far and ensure we are on the right track.

Gaming the Map Description

This morning as I was dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s of my ethics submission form, I was talking to Jon about the specifics of my study.  I expressed my worry concerning the fact that packaging the study as a game will inevitably cause participants to form descriptions of maps in such a way that will ensure points and win the game.

This became apparent in some trial runs of my study when the person describing the map formulated their description so their partner could easily distinguish between the 3 maps that were being presented to them.  Instead of just concentrating on the map in front of them the person describing the map was thinking about the fact that their partner has 3 maps with the same extent in front of them, but with a different spatial distribution of points.  They were trying to pinpoint features that would allow for easy comparison of the differences in the maps in order to win the game.

For example when asked to describe this map:

Thematic Map Example

One participant wrote:

« Exactly 2 dots under St. Catherines Rd. »

From the perspective of the game, this is a great description, and their partner knew the answer right away.  They’ve chosen to focus on a small part of the map that, chances are in the three maps their partner is faced with will differ in some way.  From the perspective of the study though, we are trying to extract a meaningful description of one map in general.  If you were given this map and had to describe it to someone who couldn’t see it, would “Exactly 2 dots under St. Catherines Rd.” really give you a good understanding of the spatial distribution of the points in relation to the base map?

Here’s another example…..

Thematic Map Example

One participant chose to describe this map by writing:

« 2 dots that touch the “y” in label “Cemetery” »

This description gave enough clues to which of the 3 maps were correct, but to use this description on its own would be useless.  How would you know where the label “Cemetery” would even be on the map? The fact that they are near a label is not as meaningful as referencing the actual geographic location is.

In the player’s defense they aren’t doing anything wrong, they are just trying to win the game, I’m afraid though that I’m posing the game in such a way that will result in descriptions that won’t actually be useful.  I would be able to extract common trends and words, but are they common because the players are trying to win the game or because that is actually how they would describe the map to somebody who couldn’t see it?  This got Jon and I talking about how else we could present this as a game, or if it should even be a game at all?

Changing up the design…

Instead of having one partner guess which map out of 3 possible options is the one being described, maybe I should have the person draw the map from the description given by their partner?  In this scenario they wouldn’t actually be drawing the base map, but they would have to distribute the points onto the map.  Their partner would be able to see what they are doing, and thus edit their description in order to address the shortcomings in the map being drawn.  This would result in a sort of drag and drop game; the person responsible for “drawing” the map can drag the points around the map and update it as their partner updates their description.

How would you win this version of the game?  I think that the person describing the map should decide when they think their teams map is similar enough to the original, but I think it should ultimately be the game that checks the map to ensure the points are placed in the correct spot.  But will having the game be responsible for the final check result in having the descriptions target certain areas just to get points and win the game? If so, I’ve just redesigned this game, but still have the same problem.  No matter what, packaging this as a game will result in a certain amount of “gaming” (obviously), but I would just need to mitigate it as best I can.

Why a game at all?

I had thought that a game would encourage participants to think more about their descriptions.  The meaning that is drawn from a map is taken for granted by sighted people.  It is a visual tool that conveys an immense amount of knowledge.  Describing what exactly that knowledge is isn’t something that people usually have to do, and I think it would be difficult for participants to understand why they are being asked to describe it and how exactly to go about doing so. Having a partner and making it a game was supposed to help with this.  But maybe if I take away the game factor, thus taking away the desire come up with strategies to win the game, descriptions would align more with the purpose of the study.

Update on the Feds Progress Towards an Accessible Web-Mapping Interface

As most people interested in reading this blog know, the driving force behind choosing my thesis topic was because it is of great importance at my place of employment.  Treasury Board, the agency in charge of enforcing CLF standards has been pushing for Web-Mapping applications to be either made accessible or taken down.  As my team has a web-mapping group of programmers, who are responsible for a large chunk of the web-mapping applications pushed out by Environment Canada nationally, we have a large stake in this.

So aside from working with Greg and UofT, I am also working with other federal departments to come up with a solution to this problem.  Agriculture Canada has done a lot of work in this area, and like us has addressed all accessibility issues except for obviously the main map image.  They have met with Treasury Board and have gotten a pass on some of their applications, as they are arguing that the map can be accessed through using the Mouse Keys function built into the operating system.

Now, although this isn’t actual accessibility, it has pleased treasury board.  EC seems to be the only group that is going as far as we are to address the accessibility of the image.  Our next step will have to be to make an appointment with treasury board. After I get back from Fredericton this will be next on my plate.  Meanwhile we have a government wiki where I will be posting tips and tricks about web-mapping accessibility in order to help out agencies that do not have developers dedicated to this task.

Testing out my study

I conducted a pseudo-study the other day to see how my idea for a research study would work out.  I need to show how people would describe a map to another person, as this is not something we usually need to do. Using 4 volunteers I had them work in pairs, where one person describes the map to the other.  I am bundling this as a game, as I would like to create an extensive knowledge base, and hopefully a game would encourage this more so than a questionnaire.  Basically, Player 1 gives hints while Player 2 guesses which map they are describing.  This game will be played online, but in the meantime I used a very low-level prototype (a booklet of photocopied maps)  in order to iron out kinks before I set forth developing the online game.

I used maps of all different extents and locations ranging from rural to urban.  Over each map I placed a thematic data layer, and also varied it’s distribution map to map (clustered, spread out etc.)  Player 1 had one map in front of them, while Player 2 had 3 maps to choose from, all with the same base layer, but with the thematic layer varied.  Each set of partners went through the 8 maps, and then switched roles and repeated the game again.

Here is a list of things I will change/add and then perform the test again:

• I included the same title on each map that was tested.  It was a very general title, and while the volunteers said it provided them with some context, it was very limited.  Next time I will vary the titles and try to make them more detailed.
• The game was too easy, although I could tell the players enjoyed it and wanted to win so I need to institute some features that will make it more challenging

• Enforce a time limit for giving hints and guessing
• Give players a word limit for their hints
• Include maps at different zoom levels so that people are less dependent on labels – less labels would make it harder to provide hints
  
• Switch maps totally after each round, as during this test I only changed their order but were still made up of the same maps
  
• Switch up partners after each round, the volunteers got to one another from the way they gave hints in the round before.
  
• Have levels that would increase in difficulty as the game progresses

I will add to my test study and grab a few coworkers when I get back into town to test it out.  Hopefully it will be a bit harder, and then I can compare the quality of descriptions that were given here.  Stay tuned.

What I imagine the interface for Player 1 would look like.

What I imagine the interface would look like for Player 2

Venturing up to the 3rd floor…

Tom Kralidis and I sat down today to talk in depth about my research.  Tom is in the Information Management division at EC whereas I am in Application development so our paths haven’t crossed much until now.  Our discussion really helped me get on track though as not only does he understand the complex workings of the federal government (!) but he was also a part-time masters student, working on Geospatial Web Services, and his advisor happened to be Fraser Taylor’s.

The main thing we discussed was the metadata available for each map’s dataset.  When I first started out on this topic, I thought all of the answers would lie in the metadata.  My course veered away from this for various reasons, as the path to research is not a straight and steady one.  But Tom and I went back to it, as he is the IM guy.  He was able to show me what is out there, and who is storing geospatial metadata really well.  Accompanying the metadata that is attached to the dataset as a whole, there is also metadata available for each record specifically.  I do not know the state of NPRI’s metadata right now, but I’m guessing it is pretty high-level if at all.  Over the next few days I’ll be exploring GeoConnections and tracking down our metadata people to see what the situation is.  And if it IS in the state I think it is, I’m just going to have to pretend it is working as it should in a perfect world…and go from there.  That’s the beauty of academia isn’t it?

I’m also going to get my hands on ESRI’s spatial analysis tools, to see how i can possibly leverage it.  More to come on that…

UofT’s Cartography Guru

I met with Byron Moldofsky on May 20th, who is the manager of the Cartography office at the university.  He was very helpful in pointing me to people that could help me in my research, as well as giving me his general comments.  He also gave me NPRI maps that his own team had already made, which I thought was a pretty funny coincidence, and my team appreciated them, they are now hanging in our GIS pod

Fraser Taylor seems to be the person to talk to, as he coined the term “Cybercartography”.  He is a Geography and Environmental professor at Carleton University.  We have touched base through email, and he has pointed me to some of his students who are working around the area of web-mapping accessibility.  One is interested in the policy side of accessibility which will be handy from an Environment Canada point of view.  We shall see what will develop.

I’ll be in Ottawa in June for work, so hopefully I can meet with Fraser and his students then.

Book Shelf

As I am about to return some books to the library, I thought I had better document some of the books I’ve gone over for future reference:

Introduction to Thematic Cartography Judith Tyner

Good definition of how thematic mapping differs from other types of maps, and which situations are best used for each type.

Purpose of thematic maps:

• to provide information on what and perhaps how much occurs at different places, that is, data storage
• to map the characteristics of a geographic phenomenon to reveal its spatial order and organization

This book also gave me a good description and outline on the process of Generalization in cartography.

• Selection
• Simplification
• Classifying or Grouping
• Symbolization

…as well as what is taken into consideration when a cartographer is faced with task of generalizing the data:

• Purpose
• Scale of Map
• Readers abilities
• Cartographer’s Equipment and Skills

Seeing Through Maps Kaiser and Wood

This is a pretty fun read and is a basic overall summary of maps.  It reads more like a workbook, with activities throughout.  I think it would be a good introductory book  for young adults interested in mapping and cartography, but it also worked for me (ha ha).  It has a good theoretical approach, and came across as very motivational concerning the field of mapping.

It hit home how important the purpose of the map is, and how it must constantly be kept in mind through it’s design.

Although a large part of the book was explaining different projections, and didn’t help me much, I found the rest useful.  It is also written with a sense of humour, which always help.

Describing a map:

“As with the truth, the subject of the map seems simple.  But when you try to put it into words, it turns out to be hard.  In fact, the map is not at all what it seems.”

“eyes and maps present selective visions, tailored to our needs.  The needs – the purposes – act as editors or fitters or lenses to let us hone in on what is important at the moment.”

Concerning generalization:

“To create a map is to abstract from the world those factors deemed important, and display them in a forum that allows them to be useful.” a map is rich in data – we want to display info that will be the most impactful to a reader – just as a map does – this all depends on the purpose.

Map Use and Analysis John Campbell

Can’t we all just get along?

I have a preference for the way accessible web-mapping is presented and I think I need to put it out there.  I have had this “argument” with other developers on my team (you know who you are), and while I understand their viewpoint, I am leaning toward the opposite camp.

Call me a dreamer, but I would like to work towards an interface that doesn’t separate the two streams of users that I am addressing here with my research, the visually impaired, and everyone else.  I think that to truly make the web accessible to all, then there should be no division.  I mean sure, you should have the ability to choose your preferences, and tailor your web experience in a way that best suits you, but I don’t think that it should be two totally separate applications.

I see the textual description as a complement to the visual map, an enhancement.  As a sighted user, I may also want to interact with the textual component, not just the visual map and vice versa.  May I remind you that visually impaired does not only include people who are blind.

But will this approach to design create an application that in the end, just frustrates all users?  This is a risk, and maybe the fact of the matter is that it would be better for all users to have the seperate streams.  I don’t technically know the answer, I just have a personal ideal solution..and it’s my research, I can conduct it how I want to, can’t I?  I will look into it to see if there has been any research done on this and keep you posted.  But in the meantime, you could put in your 2 cents…