Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Tools: Usage data #25

Open
AmeliaBR opened this issue May 24, 2019 · 8 comments
Open

Tools: Usage data #25

AmeliaBR opened this issue May 24, 2019 · 8 comments
Labels
bug: need info Important information or reference is missing. section: reference tools The "Reviewed JavaScript Tools" overview section

Comments

@AmeliaBR
Copy link
Member

@AmeliaBR AmeliaBR commented May 24, 2019

The review aims to be empirical, arguing that certain patterns should be standardized because they are already commonly used in the web.

Which means, we need data on the frequency of use of the different JS tools.
https://trends.builtwith.com/mapping/ has numbers, but no methodology. @briankardell was going to try to get some numbers from HTTP archive searches, but any other sources would be a help.

Relevant section: https://maps4html.github.io/HTML-Map-Element-UseCases-Requirements/#js-examples

@AmeliaBR AmeliaBR added the discussion: sample JS tool an existing web map tool: should we include it in the review? what should we say about it? label May 24, 2019
@prushforth
Copy link
Member

@prushforth prushforth commented May 24, 2019

That's a great section you've linked to. Pretty clear that maps are in demand on the Web, but maybe they fly a little under the radar of the Web community for some reason.

It would be ideal to pursue the HTTP archive search avenue. If there is a need to pay for such searches, I can probably arrange for that.

@AmeliaBR AmeliaBR added bug: need info Important information or reference is missing. section: reference tools The "Reviewed JavaScript Tools" overview section and removed discussion: sample JS tool an existing web map tool: should we include it in the review? what should we say about it? labels May 25, 2019
@prushforth
Copy link
Member

@prushforth prushforth commented Jun 18, 2019

I just had a meeting with Jonathan from geoseer.net, which is an open map services search engine and crawler.

They have a verified 1.5M layers in their index from about 180,000 Web map / feature / coverage services. I don't know how that would translate into number of Web pages with maps in them, but it's a pretty impressive showing from the Open Data crowd.

@prushforth
Copy link
Member

@prushforth prushforth commented Jun 19, 2019

I updated the above link with a link to the stats page for geoseer. I don't know how often they update the statistics, but it is quite informative even if slightly stale.

@AmeliaBR
Copy link
Member Author

@AmeliaBR AmeliaBR commented Jul 5, 2019

Interesting. The GeoSeer stats aren't what this issue was originally about (client-side framework use), but they are definitely relevant to the discussion about what data formats & server APIs should be supported.

@Malvoz
Copy link
Member

@Malvoz Malvoz commented Sep 10, 2019

@briankardell was going to try to get some numbers from HTTP archive searches

Seeing as @bkardell produced some data, is there perhaps a resource we can link to?

@Malvoz
Copy link
Member

@Malvoz Malvoz commented Jun 24, 2020

You can find similar if not the same data here (from querying /map/ in this HTTP Archive DOM explorer glitch).

@prushforth
Copy link
Member

@prushforth prushforth commented Jun 24, 2020

Google puts a figure on their maps platform active monthly users that is astounding.

@Malvoz
Copy link
Member

@Malvoz Malvoz commented Jun 24, 2020

1 billion monthly active users

👀

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug: need info Important information or reference is missing. section: reference tools The "Reviewed JavaScript Tools" overview section
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants