Confirm the new marker interface works

[jimsafley]

@sheilabrennan @leeannghajar

To fix #17 and create a better user experience, I added marker clusters to the map. Instead of rendering 190+ markers at a time, which slows down panning and zooming, markers are clustered into groups according to location.

Tapping the cluster will zoom in and render smaller clusters and/or individual markers. Tapping a cluster at the highest zoom level will "spiderfy" the markers, meaning it will expand the markers sharing approximate locations so they can be selected.

Clustering is is being used by an increasing number of mapping applications to manage many markers in a small geographical area, so I think our users will find it an acceptable experience.

[leeannghajar]

@jimsafleuy Jim, I've experimented with these clusters (Android, Galaxy III and on 4G rather than internet) for each era. They're fantastic. They load quickly, items are accessible, clusters-within-clusters function; no problem accessing or closing associated items on the map.

Issues? After I select a cluster, regardless of which cluster level, the back button returns me to site home page. I expected to return to the map I'm exploring.

I' d be interested to know how others are finding the experience with the pre-1800s map. Sorry for possible trouble, but should we pick another? On my screen it's dark brown, and little is really visible.

Also note that on 1800-1829 map, when opening a cluster, zoom level creates a blurry map.

Thank you for setting up github commenting.

[sheilabrennan]

I looked at this while on the Mall and I found the clusters to be a bit confusing on my phone. The mitosis-like visual split of the clusters through me off a little, because i expected that split to reveal pins and in most cases it just gave birth to smaller clusters. Some continued to split until finally getting to a pin on the 4th click. That was frustrating for me.

Sometimes touching the clusters didn't produce any action (which I assume was about the connection).

I still had trouble loading the map this afternoon on the Mall. The DC Public WiFi is very slow. The 3G was stronger. Chrome on my iPhone 4 couldn't recognize my location when I was near the Hirshorn (could be a problem with my browser, will need to upgrade). Safari recognized my location.

One thing that confused me as well is that the pin representing my location is the same shape and color as the item pins. Could we change that so it is more recognizable as something different?

I found the pre-1800s and the 1830-1859 maps are darker and harder to navigate on the phone.

[jimsafley]

@leeannghajar

After I select a cluster, regardless of which cluster level, the back button returns me to site home page. I expected to return to the map I'm exploring.

I have no control over the behavior of the device's back button. Users should zoom out using the pinch-to-zoom method or by using the zoom control panel on the bottom-right.

Also note that on 1800-1829 map, when opening a cluster, zoom level creates a blurry map.

That map in particular had a lower original resolution than the other maps, which may account for the blurriness at high zoom levels.

@sheilabrennan

The mitosis-like visual split of the clusters through me off a little, because i expected that split to reveal pins and in most cases it just gave birth to smaller clusters. Some continued to split until finally getting to a pin on the 4th click.

The purpose of clustering is to provide a granular control of which markers are shown on the map at one time. Clicking on a cluster will zoom into the bounds of the constituent markers (which could be several zoom levels). Depending on the number of markers in proximity to each other at the resultant zoom level, you'll see individual markers or more clusters. What does an average user expect to happen when clicking on a cluster? When presented with markers at the original zoom level, why shouldn't the user expect more clusters at higher zoom levels?

I still had trouble loading the map this afternoon on the Mall.

Regrettably, there's little I can do here (see #17). We're at the mercy of OpenStreetMap servers when loading base map tiles, and we can't compress our historic map tiles any more or they'll be blurry at the highest zoom levels. However slow the map was today, it was significantly slower before I implemented clustering.

One thing that confused me as well is that the pin representing my location is the same shape and color as the item pins. Could we change that so it is more recognizable as something different?

15

[mlbest]

I liked the new marker interface. The only issue that I had with it was sometimes when you went from the circle to the individual markers with the sudden zoom it was hard to tell which markers had newly appeared and which were already there in crowded areas, like the Capitol for example.

When selecting some of the markers from the map the images show up outside of the white box which is meant to frame the items, including Thomas Law. Also some say "false" underneath them for reasons I am uncertain of, including Charles Carroll Glover, Mary Ann Hall, and the Marine Band.

[sheilabrennan]

@jimsafley When coming upon the clusters, I expected the cluster to split into multiple pins when I tapped on it, rather than into smaller clusters.

I do understand the rationale for clustering. But the clusters within clusters may be frustrating to users because it takes longer to actually get to the content loaded on the map.

Amanda and Spencer also found this clusters splitting into other clusters unexpected when they viewed the map from their laptops.

We may want to show this around to some others to get some other feedback. If I'm the only one who finds it weird, it may just be me, and I'm willing to pull back if most folks find the cluster behavior expected, intuitive, et al.

[mlbest]

@sheilabrennan I would agree with that point.

[jimsafley]

Clusters are absolutely necessary when more than one marker share coordinates. You can see this yourself when clicking on a cluster at the highest zoom level. The markers "spiderfy" (fan out) so they are individually visible and clickable. In fact, this is the point of clustering at any zoom level: markers crowd each other, making them difficult (or impossible) to click on individually. I maintain that clustering is a necessary strategy for both speed and usability.

[leeannghajar]

I'm a total fan of the clustering feature. The question seems to be whether clusters within clusters are helpful (and to what level) in getting to content. And perhaps, that when the zoom factor increases, it's increasingly difficult to tell to what the the markers refer. And why. Our geolocation relationships are not quite that precise. Around the Washington Monument, for example, there's not rational reason for subclusters. Items, Events, Places are pretty much all about the Monument, not about sublocations on the monument grounds.