Archive for category Uncategorized

Professional Philosophy: Don’t be Enemies with the End User

When listening to water-cooler chat we often hear a tone of animosity toward the very people for whom we are working. No, I’m not referring to the boss (though that’s certainly typical as well), I’m referring to the end users of whatever it is you are creating.

Software developers complain about the idiocy of those who will be using their system, GIS analysts complain about wolves not living in the areas cited as most suitable in their GIS models*, cartography teachers worry about the incompetent design skills of those they teach, and so on.

What are you prone to complaining about and how can you turn that around so as to design a better product for your end users?

When we are excited about creating something that will eventually be used to make a difference, our work performance increases. Think about what those things are that make the product useful and keep those things at the forefront of your mind throughout the project for the ultimate motivated mindset.

All too often–especially in the cartography teaching field–we tend to be, okay, I’m going to say it…SNOBS…about how much we know and about how much the “others” don’t know. In the case of teaching cartography, our end users are the students who are learning. A much better approach is to evaluate their current skills, respect the variety of strengths they bring (both vocally and in terms of our attitude), and teach with compassion. This brings about a much more satisfactory result than the “snob-method”, which only serves to scare students off.

I still remember a very old professor of horticulture whom I took a class from back in college. The course was basically one of memorization. You had to memorize the names of trees, how to identify them in both winter and summer foliage, where they grew, and so on. This professor had had a stroke a few years prior to my class. He said that after his stroke he had to re-memorize everything that he was teaching, because the stroke had caused him to forget it all. Because re-learning it was still fresh in his mind, he told us he was much easier on us than he had been to students before his stroke, because he realized how difficult it is to learn everything from scratch. His experience gave him extra empathy for his end users–the students. We still learned quite a bit, and probably fared better than his previous classes, due to a new emphasis on collaborative learning that he had put into place to facilitate retention of the difficult material.

So that brings us to the following warning: being enemies with the end user is not only unproductive, it may even lead to your demise.

*Only partially a joke, it’s probably happened. :)

3 Comments

Good Design

Brian Timoney put it well the other day when he asserted that people don’t want good design, they want familiar design, which ranges from blah to horrible.

When a client, boss, or colleague can’t grasp the virtues of a map design that isn’t of a familiar variety, what is to be done? First of all, remember that there are people who appreciate good design and seek them out. Second, don’t give up on your design, major changes can only see the light of day if they are backed by a strong supporter. Third, remember the preemptive strike: always explain design decisions as you go and during the delivery of the first draft (don’t give them a chance to apply out-dated reasoning to your map).

If you are a client, boss, or colleague, what is the best way to avoid the hard feelings associated with design criticism? First, remember that every design is personal to the designer. Second, always express as much appreciation as you can truthfully muster (regarding meeting a deadline, working hard, design decisions you did like, etc.) Perhaps that’s just a U.S.-centric custom, I’m not sure how it is in other, more austere/formal cultures. But here, you can’t expect to get good work out of someone for whom you’ve shown no appreciation.

5 Comments

Using LiDAR to Calculate Tree Height

Using data from the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium, I did a very straightforward analysis to determine tree height. By subtracting the 6-foot resolution bare earth data from the 6-foot resolution top surface data you get the difference, which is of course the height of whatever is out there.

Now, what I really want is to determine the spatial pattern and extent of forested areas so there is one slight problem with the data: if I determine “forested” land to be anything over say, 30 feet high, then the places that have had recent forest harvest will not be delineated as “forested.” For some analyses this would be okay but we’d like to know total forest versus non forest where clear-cuts we still consider to be forested since they will be replanted (unless they are going to be converted).

The accuracy of the data, however, makes it so appealing to use that we’ll have to determine a way around this slight inadequacy. I’ll probably bring in a couple of other layers such as parcel landuse codes that denote forest land to add back in any areas that were not initially designated as forest but that are in a commercial forest parcel. This still doesn’t help capture any recent cutting done at a very small scale, however, such as when a 5 acre parcel owner cuts 5 of their 10 trees.

I’ve only run the analysis on one tile so far, while the entire study area is around 200 tiles. The one tile didn’t take very long to run in ArcGIS so hopefully all 200 will be relatively easy. I’m still in the very early stages of this analysis so who knows what snags will be encountered. In the screenshots below you’ll see the results and an image of the area to compare it with. The results show values as high as 300 feet. Those would be interesting to select out. Most of the bright-white areas, though, are only about 100 feet.

No Comments