Buttons or tabs are function keys on a computer screen that are designed to facilitate users' direct manipulations. One increasingly popular application of the button technique in a GIS environment is weighted map overlays for land suitability assessment. Here, buttons are coded with weighting values to indicate maps' importance to their associations. There are, however, a number of flaws in the existing button designs that can affect the quality of land-suitability assessment. In this paper, we first examine two common problems of redundancy and underrepresentation in button design, and then present a button system that is free from these problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChrismanN, 1997Exploring Geographic Information Systems (John Wiley, New York)
2.
DavisJ RMcDonaldG T, 1993, “Applying a rule-based decision support system to local government planning”, in Expert Systems in Environmental Planning Eds WrightJ RWigginsL LJainR KKimT J (Springer, New York) pp 24–46
3.
EastmanJ RKyemP A KToledanoJJinW, 1995GIS and Decision Making: United Nations Institute for Training and Research: Explorations in Geographic Information Systems TechnologyVolume 4Unitar, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva10
4.
EdwardsW, 1977, “How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision-making”IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and CyberneticsSMC-7326–340
5.
HobbsB F, 1980, “A comparison of weighting methods in power plant siting”Decision Sciences11725–737
KeeneyR LRaiffaH, 1976Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (John Wiley, New York)
8.
KlostermanR E, 1999, “The What if? collaborate planning support system”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design26393–408
9.
LaiS-KHopkinsL D, 1989, “The meanings of trade-offs in multiattribute evaluation methods: a comparison”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design16155–170
10.
McClellandG H, 1980, “Axioms for the weighted linear model”, research report number 227, Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
11.
MillerG A, 1956, “The magical number of seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information”Psychological Review63(2) 81–97
12.
MyersB A, 1998, “A brief history of human computer interaction technology”ACM Interactions5(2)44–54
13.
SaatyT L, 1980The Analytic Hierarchy Process (McGraw-Hill, New York)
14.
SecundaSCollinM LMelloulA J, 1998, “Groundwater vulnerability assessment using a composite model combining DRASTIC with extensive agricultural land use in Israel's Sharon region”Journal of Environmental Management5439–57
15.
SmithDIrbyCKimballRVerplankBHarslemE, 1982, “Designing the star user interface”Byte7242–282
16.
ValentP JYoungD K, 1995, “Abyssal seafloor waste isolation: environmental report”, NRL/MR/7401-95-7576, Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529–5004
17.
WhitleyD LXiangW-NYoungJ J, 1993, “Use a GIS ‘melting pot’ to assess land use suitability”GIS World6(7) 48–51
18.
XiangW-N, 2000, “A theoretical framework for weight–value set construction in land suitability assessment”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design27599–614
19.
YanivI, 1997, “Weighting and trimming: heuristics for aggregating judgments under uncertainty”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes69237–249
