GIS Terms and Non-Users


At a conference for salmon scientists recently, I found a disconnect between those wanting to know more about GIS and those who wanted to teach about GIS. There was a lack of common vocabulary with which to describe the GIS procedures to the non-GIS professionals. GIS professionals cannot gain much traction with the non-initiated when we insist on using professional jargon with those who don’t have a clue what we are talking about.

For instance, there was need for explanation to point out that there is a difference between a GPS unit and the software that inputs data from a GPS unit (ArcPad, for example). Another phenomenon of note is a tendency to use the term Google Earth to mean aerial imagery as in, “Put the data on top of Google Earth.” This is a wide-spread colloquial usage that I’ve heard from many people.

On the subject of things that non-GIS people have trouble understanding, Twitter friend @tpstigers says, “Nobody ever understands projections, and I despair of working explanations.” For this particularly difficult concept I too flounder on a regular basis. The only time I feel I have truly successfully imparted the idea of projection to a non-GISer was the time when I sat with a scientist colleague in front of ArcGIS. With a map of the world on-screen I changed the projection on the fly several times. Seeing it change while I discussed the merits and drawbacks of various projections got the message across in a matter of several minutes.

Another Twitter friend, @ebwolf, states that “I always take a deep breath and seriously consider my audience before I say ‘large scale’ or ‘small scale’.” Considering I’ve had trouble with these terms even with other GISers I’d go a step further and advise to never use these terms if you can help it, at all. @geografa explains scale this way, “Large scale, large details. Small scale, small details.” @ebwolf chimes back in with reference to a Goodchild paper explaining that scale is a legacy concept anyway, so don’t use it. Personally, I prefer to use the simple (yet slightly dumber sounding) terms zoom in and zoom out as in, “Do you want that map to be zoomed in quite a bit or zoomed out?”

At the end of all this discussion @spara pitched in, “Now how to explain reference fraction in a meaningful way.” I don’t think I’m going to go there. If you have any grand ideas please let us know. :)

  1. #1 by Nazib Faizal on May 11, 2011 - 9:02 am

    Nice article, thanks for sharing with us. Yes, it is so hard to explain all projection things to non-user. Actually, in my experience non-user doesn’t take too much for such thing as long our map has a scale. :)

  2. #2 by Roger Diercks on May 13, 2011 - 4:44 am

    I’ve also largely abandoned ‘large scale’ and ‘small scale’ for ‘zoomed in’, ‘zoomed out’, or similar terminology.
    That non-GIS, non-mapping people almost always instantly grasp what is being conveyed in that type of terminology is a testament to the pervasiveness of mapping on the web.

  3. #3 by Gretchen on May 13, 2011 - 6:07 am

    Roger – good point!

  4. #4 by BertAGRC on May 13, 2011 - 4:46 pm

    I like coarse/fine scale or view

    GCF and LCD math terms get abused in the same way as scale

Comments are closed.

Ищете актуальную ссылку на Кракен? Официальный вход на крупнейший маркетплейс даркнета всегда доступен через проверенный источник. Для безопасного доступа используйте bhr-q.com.