[Manifold-l] Manifold Roadmap

[SCISOFT]

Dimitri 
I'll try to keep within the post limit of 50Kb by excising substantial
amounts of your post, though it's nice to have things in context. A plain
text post (rather than HTML) will help. 

>> I had been thinking - a year ago - that Manifold was really 
>> retreating into a silo-like data formatting mentality, and 
> 
> More an undesired side effect of expanding technology. If you 
> do a lot and want to put a lot of different things (vectors, 
> rasters, surfaces, scripts, comments, queries, themes, etc, 
> etc) you end up storing things that are specific to one 
> package.   Everyone knows the the line about the road to
> you-know-where being paved with good intentions.  
> People want to build a safe and convenient storage space 
> for data and they end up building a silo.
>
That's where and when manifold.net gave me the distinct impression that they
were on the road-to-who-knows-where-maybe
they-do-but-nobody-else-has-a-clue. Maybe I'm a bit dense and don't pick up
the clues.

> Even going to a neutral format for vector storage, formatting 
> and projections doesn't solve the whole thing.  But it is a 
> step in the right direction.    We have an idea how to solve 
> the ultimate requirement, to really open things up, and are 
> working to make that happen.
>
That's something which is relevant to those who are committed by their work
in a company environment or a particular industry sector, or by their
clients, to consuming one or a small number of formats from other GIS
vendors. I'm talking at the simplest level, ESRI SHP and MapInfo TAB
formats. You can be a silo that sucks in and spews out these foreign formats
- with a modicum of success - and appears to be making a serious attempt to
play catch-up with the changes or the inconsistencies (we both know that SHP
and its evolving set of associate files is inconsistently used by some GIS
players). You may get some credit for doing a reasonable job, or some users
may just expect that anything or everything that they see in the MapInfo
desktop interface (to switch away from the ESRI example for a change) should
be converted to a Manifold drawing - line-styles and all. Unreasonable? They
may not think so. 
So, to be able to say to the broad user fraternity, and as importantly (I
would have thought) to intending buyers of the product(s): 

"We are committed to working towards a neutral format for vector storage,
formatting, and projections (but) 
1. This is a difficult process, and of necessity will be evolutionary; 
2. Data exchange to & from (some) common legacy GIS file formats will be
retained, and the conversion process improved where it is consistent with
our aim (ie, the neutral format, etc)" 

- is something that some of the respondents here (who bleat on about the
need for Manifold "reference sites", company bona fides, etc) may be
encouraged by.

Improve upon my language, sure. Rephrase it for different audiences -
technical detail about the very broad statements 1. and 2. is inappropriate
for some, required by others.  

But those isolated bleating voices (of some Manifold-L posters) that I
mentioned are (in my opinion) just symptomatic of a broader perception "out
there", that Manifold is some sort of a maverick product, with maverick or
eccentric advocates. 

> I do agree that some statement of future intent is good to 
> reveal what a company's aspirations are, so that one can 
> get a sense of the company's corporate culture and general 
> intentions.  
Please don't take this the wrong way - I see some big steps to remedy my
criticisms. 
Both the manifold website and Manifold GIS user manual have been a dog's
breakfast, for at least the last 2 years, that I know of. The online user
manual is in great shape now - for almost a year (more?), it's been
improving. 
The website - frankly, I think it deters a lot of people. Maybe it's just
taste. It looks like it's done for a community / neighbourhood group, in
someone's spare time. 
When I first happened on the website in 2003 (I think), I wondered if this
was some /// 

> In that respect, manifold.net has made some 
> statements of broad intent, albeit few and very broad.  
> 
Semantics. I'm prepared to accept those as a broad roadmap, and I would be
grateful that the occasional public utterance - by Manifold Net Ltd - was
accessible and well-known. 
As someone has said (maybe you, Dimitri) this list and the community forum
thing are not representative of the views of the vast number of Manifold GIS
users, and very few of those users (of whatever skill or inclination or %
use of the Manifold's full feature-set) would even know about those vehicles
for expression or notification. However, a company's website is generally
recognized as one of the places in which one might be expected to look for
what's going on. 
I presume that your writings here and on the forum are recognized as
Manifold's views /// 


> None of the following are guarantees.  It is all statements 
> of aspirations with no timelines.  Could happen now, or in 
> ten years, or never:
>
> 1. We will focus on Microsoft technologies, standard Microsoft 
> languages and standard Windows releases.
>
OK - standard stuff. As a part of a "roadmap", it helps understanding. 
I make my own assumptions that this means being Vista-compatible, and at
some time adopting some of the Vista technologies where they are relevant. 

> 2. We think there is a big role for desktop software and we 
> don't intend to abandon desktops to chase a "net PC" dream 
> working exclusively over Internet. 
>
OK - standard stuff. As a part of a "roadmap", it helps understanding.
I assume that Manifold Net Ltd regards this Google Maps / Google Earth stuff
as a bit of a distraction, but an opportunity as well. 
My comments would be that the Manifold IMS was in place; Google made
simple-minded "internet mapping" accessible - even though Microsoft had done
it before; and that Manifold users are following the hype (and the simple
experience that some are satisfied with). And also, that some third-parties
are charging $thousands for a Manifold-based application and some
consulting. 

> 3. We nonetheless believe in Internet as a way of delivering 
> publication (as in image servers), interactive IMS, updates 
> and the like.
>
OK. This is a bit of a non-statement (but it doesn't bother me). Whether
Manifold Net Ltd develops a distinct product line for image servers and more
interactive IMS might be something for conjecture (and made clear in future
years). 

> 4. We strongly support .NET and will do all in our power to 
> assure that Manifold becomes entirely managed code and 
> seamlessly works with .NET in all instances.
>
See point 1. This is just point 1a, isn't it? 

> 5. We believe in vendor-neutral interchange if it can be 
> achieved in a practical way.  
OK - a laudable aim. Unless it's fleshed out a bit, it doesn't help
understanding and is irrelevant to any sort of "roadmap". 
 
> We like Oracle Spatial for that 
> and don't like GML for that.
>
Well, Oracle actually uses the OGC feature set - but I guess it's more your
distaste for the full GML 3 spec and its expression as an XML fileset? Or is
it camels and donkeys again? Oracle likes a part of the menagerie, it seems.


> 6. We want to support Oracle Spatial in a totally transparent way. 
>
Read: we don't want to rely on separate middleware (Spatial This, Spatial
That), whether 3rd-party or Manifold's - yes? 

> 7. Manifold wants no limitations on size of local projects, 
> either in capacity or display/rendering restrictions.
>
Courageous. A little obscure or generalized, but I understand the gist. Not
a good statement for a roadmap, though. 
Capacity: # of components in a Manifold project; size of the project in disk
storage for internal (.MAP) and for linked (raster, other - locally,
networked, on disk, within an enterprise database) - ??
Rendering: system and graphics RAM and the OS are restrictions (as has been
discussed here, in the past few weeks). 

> 8. We want to evolve our product into not just being the most 
> powerful but known first for being the fastest as well as being 
> the most powerful.
>
Perhaps. But ease of use? 

> 9. We believe in 64-bits, multicore processors and multiprocessing.
>
(and cheaper RAM chips, please)

> 10. We want to drive prices lower, not higher.
>
That puzzles me (despite all the verbiage over the past days). I would have
thought that it makes more sense to differentiate the Manifold product line
into a wider range of packages (as has occurred, even from 7.0 to 7x, if
I've followed the Manifold Online Store correctly). But that gets into some
other issues (like usability) - which I don't believe Manifold has yet
conquered. 

> 11. We want to make sure everything within Manifold can be 
> reached through the API either for programming or for 
> IMS applications.
>
Everything? Currently, it's not possible to make a responsive and performant
Viewer application out of the runtime. There's a long way to go to meet even
a part of that aim. 

> 12. We want to expand the programmability of Manifold with 
> continued better features for applications developers and 
> taking IMS totally into the .NET world.
>
OK - part of some of the above, really. 

> 13. Sooner or later, most likely later, we'll have a 
> technology solution for Manifold in languages other 
> than English.
>
YES - I'm very surprised that localization hasn't been done, at the v6.0
release. I would have thought it worth some serious effort. 

14. We don't see any artificial borders between GIS and CAD 
> and graphics arts editing, etc.  So we expect to keep moving 
> Manifold forward until you won't need things like AutoCAD 
> or Illustrator.
>
Again, it's laudable but blue sky - surely? Perhaps you need to eat up ACD
Systems' Canvas.  

> 15. From a business perspective we will continue to focus 
> everything on the product, on making the technical wishlists 
> of our users come true.  We are here to build your dream GIS,
> to make it as easy to use, as powerful and as inexpensive 
> as humanly possible.
>
Well, that might be credible if there were even an unofficial "wish-list".

> 16. From a marketing perspective, we won't rest until we 
> eliminate ESRI and other GIS competitors from GIS desktop 
> and GIS enterprise markets.  
Silly. 

> Whatever it takes, however 
> many features, however low price, however great capacity
> and speed and power, that's what we will do.
>
Everyone needs a passion, and maybe that's yours. 

> There's probably more than the above, but I think that's 
> about what has been suggested as a broad roadmap.  
> It's certainly plenty enough to keep a company busy. :-)
>
More than enough - thanks for the attention.

Usability is a sore point with me. Manifold is just so-so. 

I'm not a tyro at this business, and I can find my way around most software
- and I understand and largely agree with the oft-repeated points about
users of Microsoft Office. 

There are some users of Office (let's say Word, or Excel, or even Access)
who may not be techos, may not even be very diligent, but who really are
very proficient at using one or other of the Office applications in
particular ways that are very impressive. 

Now is that because they're particularly talented, or perhaps in part
because Microsoft has put thousands of hours into usability testing and into
improvement of those aspects of each program? 

Sure, they improve or fix the feature set, too. But it's probably a 5%/95%
rule with users and features. Anecdotes about Word are not about "this great
feature", so much about "it's easy to do - let me show you" - with several
approaches to the same solution provided by Microsoft so that at least one
of them will be discovered by the users. Even my parents are competent,
beyond expectations.

I think I've got to argue by analogy and example, here. 

I don't know if you've used or even seen earliest and evolving versions of
the webpage/ website creation/editing program, FrontPage - which was
acquired by Microsoft. It was a bugger to use. As it became Microsoftened,
not only did it gain features and interactivity / compatibility with the
Microsoft Office suite, but its usability came up to the Microsoft standard.
Now, some of the features of the initial product were excellent - website
visualizers, on-the-fly rendition of text to raster images, multiple views
of the workspace, themes that were simple and configurable, an extensibility
model (not so good at first), etc. Now, I believe it will be discarded - but
the point is, the usability in the latest (2003) version was excellent,
productive. 

A more recent example is the graphics creation software called Creature
House Expression 3. It was a Mac and Windows application. The company
(Creature House) was acquired by Microsoft (in 2004), and the product has
evolved into 3 separate products called "Sparkle Interactive Designer",
"Acrylic Graphic Designer", and "Quartz Web Designer". They now run on WinFX
- and for what they are, they're great and easy to use. I tried the original
product, and it was awkward to learn (a similar example might be Deneba
Canvas, now ACD Systems Canvas - a Windows product for a long time (10+
years?), but with some weirdnesses in its usability that were just plain
annoying. 

I'm not suggesting what is needed for Manifold's improvement in this area.
Some people thinks it's fine, anyway. 

Keep sane. 

IL Thomas
GeoSciSoft - Perth, Australia