----------------------------Original message----------------------------
John Feiber brings up a great point when he was talking about the DOQs:
========================================================================
>    This does bring up an issue that I've been wondering about: At
>    what point should a library just provide raw data with the
>    assumption that the user will provide the equipment to use it?
>
>    We typically provide microform readers, VCRs, TVs, cassette
>    decks, CD players, film projectors, and speech synthesizers for
>    the blind are not uncommon.  To get a quick view of data put out
>    by the USGS and others only requires a run-of-the-mill PC, but to
>    actually *USE* the data requires quite a lot more than you will
>    find at the corner Compu-Mart.  And when getting enough support
>    to buy a couple more drawers of map space is like pulling teeth
>    without the benefit an anesthetic...
>
>    -john [log in to unmask]
== My comments follow ================================================
 
I am working with a model that there are levels of users.  The levels
so far seem to be Reference and Research.
 
For the Reference User, typically a undergrad who wants to spend no more
than 30 min. on the project, a fair amount of pre-work has to be done.  Here
at UConn that means down loading census data, breaking it into tract and block
group, associating the attributes with digital maps, etc.  For the Researcher,
however, it assumes a level of literacy.
 
To me GIS or spatial data literacy implies having a computer, software and
knowledge.  These users have access to a lot more information, but they
need to know what and how to use it.  The problem is, that these users are
not necessarily as literate as I had assumed.  In fact, as "non-GIS" people
start using the data, those economists, real estate, sociologists and so on,
they need a lot of help.  So, though they have the computer, software and
application knowledge, how raw can the data be; or do we have a responsibility
to cook it a little.
 
For example, the DOQs for Connecticut probably need to be stored on the
server in compressed as well as expanded mode.  The library might need
to devise ways of "clipping" that portion of the image the user needs, or
joining and clipping when soil and vegetation types don't cooperate with
our county lines.  We probably have a responsibility to supply the user
with what they need, not just with what we have.  We either need to supply
the data in appropriate format or supply a graphics converter.
 
In any event, it seems to me that if it takes 2 or 24 minutes to expand
these files, it would be better to do it once in the library than burden
each user with the chore of expanding.  If we have problems with storage
(elec) devices, you can bet our clients will.  In many ways, it seems to
be a collection development issue.  Here in Connecticut if I can't do
the whole state, I expect I will do Spring Hill, Coventry quads (our
local area) and Ellington (that quad which is the object of intense study
every fall and spring) others done on demand.
Comments?