I got this week three times the same question: "I have an OGC web service, which is secured (basic auth, for example). For my web mapping application, is is possible to access to it without login ?"
The answer is NO !!!
In order to secure a web service, you need an authentication process and an authorization process. Basically, you need to know who is connected and what are the rights of the connected user. If one of these elemnts is missing, you will not be able to secure your web service.
Of course, you can create a nice server proxy that will filter/modify or whatever the request to the secured web service (in this case, the proxy will send the login information to the secured OGC service), but this proxy will basically expose what you want to expose to the web applications. It will not secure anything, it will simply hide what you don't want to show to the web application. MapServer can, for example, plays this role.
So, a choice has to be made: login or no login !
Monday, November 16, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
MapFish starts the OSGEO incubation process !
Both MapFish and GeoServer projects have been accepted yesterday to the OSGEO (Open Source Geospatial foundation) incubation process.
MapFish initial discussions started at Foss4G 2006. I think that the MapFish community did a fantastic work in order to provide an easy-to-use web 2.0 development framework. It's now an honour to be recognized on the OSGEO level, together with very well-established Open Source projects.
We face now some very interesting challenge like defining the exact content of MapFish, deciding about the license model and the copyright assignment, organizing the PSC and the governance etc, etc... But maybe, the biggest challenge will be to explain what is exactly MapFish and what are its benefits. Anyone who is willing to participate to these initial discussions is welcome to join an IRC meeting tomorrow.
Thanks to Gary Sherman for accepting to be our mentor in this process.
MapFish Client discussing with MapFish Server
MapFish initial discussions started at Foss4G 2006. I think that the MapFish community did a fantastic work in order to provide an easy-to-use web 2.0 development framework. It's now an honour to be recognized on the OSGEO level, together with very well-established Open Source projects.
We face now some very interesting challenge like defining the exact content of MapFish, deciding about the license model and the copyright assignment, organizing the PSC and the governance etc, etc... But maybe, the biggest challenge will be to explain what is exactly MapFish and what are its benefits. Anyone who is willing to participate to these initial discussions is welcome to join an IRC meeting tomorrow.
Thanks to Gary Sherman for accepting to be our mentor in this process.
MapFish Client discussing with MapFish Server
Monday, November 9, 2009
MapFish and Cloud Computing
At Foss4G, Claude presented how MapFish applications are hosted in Cloud Computing infrastructure. Don't miss the video.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
KISS !
It's not so common for me to blog about another blog, but Dale Lutz's blog about simplicity is so good, that I can't resist ;-)
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Universal Principles of Design: Fitt's law
This is my favourite principle: "The time required to move to a target is a function of the target size and distance to the target".
In web mapping, it is often needed to select feature (to open a popup or present attributive information, for example). If the representation size of the feature is big, then it will be easier and faster to select it.
Another example is the size of the icons: a 16x16 icons will be more difficult to click than a 32x32.
Of course, it's not possible to present only huge icons and huge features, but for common and repetitive operations, they should be used.
Source: "Universal Principles of Design" from Lidwell, Holden and Butler
In web mapping, it is often needed to select feature (to open a popup or present attributive information, for example). If the representation size of the feature is big, then it will be easier and faster to select it.
Another example is the size of the icons: a 16x16 icons will be more difficult to click than a 32x32.
Of course, it's not possible to present only huge icons and huge features, but for common and repetitive operations, they should be used.
Source: "Universal Principles of Design" from Lidwell, Holden and Butler
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Do you like Open Source ?
The United States Department of Defense (DoD) has published the document "Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software".
The content of this document is particularly interesting:
There are positive aspects of OSS that should be considered when conducting market research on software for DoD use, such as:
(i) The continuous and broad peer-review enabled by publicly available source code supports software reliability and security efforts through the identification and elimination of defects that might otherwise go unrecognized by a more limited core development team.
(ii) The unrestricted ability to modify software source code enables the Department to respond more rapidly to changing situations, missions, and future threats.
(iii) Reliance on a particular software developer or vendor due to proprietary restrictions may be reduced by the use of OSS, which can be operated and maintained by multiple vendors, thus reducing barriers to entry and exit.
(iv) Open source licenses do not restrict who can use the software or the fields of endeavor in which the software can be used. Therefore, OSS provides a net-centric licensing model that enables rapid provisioning of both known and unanticipated users.
(v) Since OSS typically does not have a per-seat licensing cost, it can provide a cost advantage in situations where many copies of the software may be required, and can mitigate risk of cost growth due to licensing in situations where the total number of users may not be known in advance.
(vi) By sharing the responsibility for maintenance of OSS with other users, the Department can benefit by reducing the total cost of ownership for software, particularly compared with software for which the Department has sole responsibility for maintenance.
(vii) OSS is particularly suitable for rapid prototyping and experimentation, where the ability to “test drive” the software with minimal costs and administrative delays can be important.
If features are equivalent, do you still see advantage to use proprietary software ?
The content of this document is particularly interesting:
There are positive aspects of OSS that should be considered when conducting market research on software for DoD use, such as:
(i) The continuous and broad peer-review enabled by publicly available source code supports software reliability and security efforts through the identification and elimination of defects that might otherwise go unrecognized by a more limited core development team.
(ii) The unrestricted ability to modify software source code enables the Department to respond more rapidly to changing situations, missions, and future threats.
(iii) Reliance on a particular software developer or vendor due to proprietary restrictions may be reduced by the use of OSS, which can be operated and maintained by multiple vendors, thus reducing barriers to entry and exit.
(iv) Open source licenses do not restrict who can use the software or the fields of endeavor in which the software can be used. Therefore, OSS provides a net-centric licensing model that enables rapid provisioning of both known and unanticipated users.
(v) Since OSS typically does not have a per-seat licensing cost, it can provide a cost advantage in situations where many copies of the software may be required, and can mitigate risk of cost growth due to licensing in situations where the total number of users may not be known in advance.
(vi) By sharing the responsibility for maintenance of OSS with other users, the Department can benefit by reducing the total cost of ownership for software, particularly compared with software for which the Department has sole responsibility for maintenance.
(vii) OSS is particularly suitable for rapid prototyping and experimentation, where the ability to “test drive” the software with minimal costs and administrative delays can be important.
If features are equivalent, do you still see advantage to use proprietary software ?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Design of web maping applications
As you know, the page paradigm in Internet evolved to the application paradigm.
We are now building web 2.0 maping applications, with a lot of functions, a lot of capabilities and, of course, more complexity comparing to the first web maping applications.
I think that one of the key challenge for the future is to be able to propose web applications that are usable.
Maybe I should start with a definition of the term usability. Usually, five terms (see wikipedia) are associated with usability:
- Learnability: How easy it is for users to accomplish basic tasks ?
- Efficiency: Once users have learned the design, how quickly can they perform tasks ?
- Memorability: When users return to the design, how easily can they reetablish proficiency ?
- Errors: How many errors do users ?
- Satisfaction: How pleasant is it to use the design ?
I bet that we all would like that our web maping applications can receive positive answer to all these questions.
The key point is that all these questions are related to the users. So, obviously, we need to know these users. We need to know what are the users expectations, what are the users reactions, how the users perform.
During a project life-cycle, two main things can be done in order to take in account the users. Firstly, before the development phase, user centric design can be conducted in order to get the maximal number of input of the end user (not the GIS expert; the end user. I will come back in other blogs about this). And secondly, after the development phase, usability studies can be conducted in order to verify that the application meet the expectations in term of usability. I got the chance to participate to usability studies and I can only say that they are incredibly informative and valuable.
But let's come back to the users. Of course, users are not all the same. They have different background, culture, knowledge, expertise. Let's imagine that you develop a web mapping applications for touristic information: in this case, the diversity of users is endless. So, is it possible to create a usable web maping application for all these users ? Of course, the answer is yes, and why ? Because, some general rules can apply. My favourite reading in this domain is the book "Universal Principles of Design" from Lidwell, Holden and Butler. The sub title is very explicit: "100 ways to enhance usability. Influence perception, Increase appeal, Make better design decision and Teach through Design".
But, how is this related to MapFish ? MapFish, as web development framework provides the brick to create User Interfaces (OpenLayers controls, GeoExt and MapFish widgets, etc...). This is probably not a bad idea to organize and use these bricks in a usable way.
I'd like now to write a serie of blogs that will present some of these principles. Stay tuned ;-)
We are now building web 2.0 maping applications, with a lot of functions, a lot of capabilities and, of course, more complexity comparing to the first web maping applications.
I think that one of the key challenge for the future is to be able to propose web applications that are usable.
Maybe I should start with a definition of the term usability. Usually, five terms (see wikipedia) are associated with usability:
- Learnability: How easy it is for users to accomplish basic tasks ?
- Efficiency: Once users have learned the design, how quickly can they perform tasks ?
- Memorability: When users return to the design, how easily can they reetablish proficiency ?
- Errors: How many errors do users ?
- Satisfaction: How pleasant is it to use the design ?
I bet that we all would like that our web maping applications can receive positive answer to all these questions.
The key point is that all these questions are related to the users. So, obviously, we need to know these users. We need to know what are the users expectations, what are the users reactions, how the users perform.
During a project life-cycle, two main things can be done in order to take in account the users. Firstly, before the development phase, user centric design can be conducted in order to get the maximal number of input of the end user (not the GIS expert; the end user. I will come back in other blogs about this). And secondly, after the development phase, usability studies can be conducted in order to verify that the application meet the expectations in term of usability. I got the chance to participate to usability studies and I can only say that they are incredibly informative and valuable.
But let's come back to the users. Of course, users are not all the same. They have different background, culture, knowledge, expertise. Let's imagine that you develop a web mapping applications for touristic information: in this case, the diversity of users is endless. So, is it possible to create a usable web maping application for all these users ? Of course, the answer is yes, and why ? Because, some general rules can apply. My favourite reading in this domain is the book "Universal Principles of Design" from Lidwell, Holden and Butler. The sub title is very explicit: "100 ways to enhance usability. Influence perception, Increase appeal, Make better design decision and Teach through Design".
But, how is this related to MapFish ? MapFish, as web development framework provides the brick to create User Interfaces (OpenLayers controls, GeoExt and MapFish widgets, etc...). This is probably not a bad idea to organize and use these bricks in a usable way.
I'd like now to write a serie of blogs that will present some of these principles. Stay tuned ;-)
NOISE with MapFish
The European Environment Agency has used MapFish to develop the NOISE (NOISE means "Noise Obervation and Information Service for Europe") viewer.
Have a look at this very nice application.
Have a look at this very nice application.
Friday, October 23, 2009
MapFish at Foss4G: Day 4
Last day at Foss4G:
- It started early by a presentation of GeoBretagne from Eric and Claude: MapFish in a java environment for SDI based on OWS.
- Geoprisma has been introduced and we have to follow this tool used for the securization of SDI infrastructure.
- Overcrowded rooms for the MapFish (presentation) and GeoExt (presentation) presentations.
- MapServer vs GeoServer: advantage to MapServer
Picture of yesterday's MapFish BOF (summary of the BOF)
And an encouraging graph at the end: the frequentation of the MapFish website:
- It started early by a presentation of GeoBretagne from Eric and Claude: MapFish in a java environment for SDI based on OWS.
- Geoprisma has been introduced and we have to follow this tool used for the securization of SDI infrastructure.
- Overcrowded rooms for the MapFish (presentation) and GeoExt (presentation) presentations.
- MapServer vs GeoServer: advantage to MapServer
Picture of yesterday's MapFish BOF (summary of the BOF)
And an encouraging graph at the end: the frequentation of the MapFish website:
Thursday, October 22, 2009
MapFish at Foss4G: Day 3
Interesting day today. We have seen a fast growing interest for GeoExt: the tutorial was overcrowded.
Otherwise, on the presentations side, some news:
- Ingres wants to support spatial data for end of 2010. We'll see...
- Tim Schaub's presentation about OpenLayers was just perfect (The main point is summarized by Erilem's statement on twitter: no longer use Layer.GML and Layer.WFS, use Layer.Vector, Format, Protocol and Strategy)
- We can't expect MapServer to support WFS-T (this is because of its architecture, according to the presenters)
- Otherwise, PostGIS continues its succesful way
We finally made a very interesting BOF about MapFish. If you want to know more, don't miss the discussion on the mailing list.
And of course, I have to mention the nice cruise at the end of the day ;-)
Otherwise, on the presentations side, some news:
- Ingres wants to support spatial data for end of 2010. We'll see...
- Tim Schaub's presentation about OpenLayers was just perfect (The main point is summarized by Erilem's statement on twitter: no longer use Layer.GML and Layer.WFS, use Layer.Vector, Format, Protocol and Strategy)
- We can't expect MapServer to support WFS-T (this is because of its architecture, according to the presenters)
- Otherwise, PostGIS continues its succesful way
We finally made a very interesting BOF about MapFish. If you want to know more, don't miss the discussion on the mailing list.
And of course, I have to mention the nice cruise at the end of the day ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
