Classification of interactive functions of the electronic atlas: theoretical and methodological basis of creation

Speaking of the varieties of IFs, we in any case already distinguish IFs, grouped by specific features. Thus, we can distinguish IFs by origin: GIS-functions (functions that are traditional for GIS-software: analysis of data statistics, database queries, etc.), cartographic functions (zooming, switching thematic layers, adjusting their transparency, etc.), functions from the science of information visualization (changing the chart type, linking data to a chart, etc.), general / system functions (devoid of subject specificity and used in any software product (authorization, change language, data import, etc.)). The most popular way to group IFs is by purpose: navigation functions (zooming, panning, centering, etc.), data manipulation (filtering, sorting, database query, etc.), map manipulation (change of classification method, change of map type, selection of projection, etc.) and many other variations, depending on the subjective views and preferences of specific authors. Another example is the grouping of IFs by operand, as in the paper (Persson et al., 2006). In order to form a library of IFs, and in the context of this research, for a set of classification objects (interactive functions), we analyzed in detail about 40 EAs and geoportals over the past 20 years. A detailed list of resources can be found at the following link: https://bit.ly/3wL35uu.One hundred seventy-nine IFs of the EA have been preliminarily identified.

The fourth goal. By kind, the future classification is special, artificial, intensional, multilevel, empirical, and taxonomic. The classification of the IFs is special because it relates to a narrow subject area - atlas cartography. Artificial kind indicates the best presentation of information for practical purposes in a searchable form. Detection and identification of objects of the classification system are based on a general property-interactivity-so the classification is intentional. Preliminarily, we can assume that the classification system will be multilevel with the allocation of a chain of taxa, for example, type-class-genuskind. Taxonomic categories do not denote real objects, but a certain rank or level of classification or hierarchical level, show the place of a classification element or group in the system. On the feature of "kind of knowledge used", classification is empirical since it is based on obtaining knowledge from available sources, such as practically developed EAs and scientific publications on the topic.

Among the general properties of the classification system of IFs are the following: complexity, integrity, focus, openness, persistence, flexibility, and effectiveness. The distribution of IFs into classification groups according to a set of features forms the complex structure of the classification system of IFs. Integrity is manifested in the ability of the system to provide or discover new knowledge, which implies the existence of previously unknown objects and connections. Not just a statement of existing experience, but the ability to anticipate new knowledge indicates the focus of the system. The classification formed in this way will be open for further updating and improvement. The modern information world is very dynamic, and taking into account the possibility of making additions and updates should provide flexibility to the system, but it should be borne in mind that making radical changes can lead to the destruction of the system. A guarantee of persistence is the possibility to introduce transitional classification groups into the classification system without destroying its overall structure. The introduction of transitional taxonomic units such as subtypes, subclasses will provide a condition of persistence. Compliance with the system effectiveness property is crucial and is related to the purpose of the classification. A clear awareness of the range of users and a focus on better communication of information, combined with minimal search time, will increase the effectiveness of classification.

In developing the classification system of IFs, the following classifying requirements are specified: requirements for the goals (resultative and realism); integrity requirements (completeness of decomposition and sequence of decomposition); adequacy requirements (correctness of features); general requirements (compactness, simplicity and clarity, visibility, unambiguous names of groups, bases and elements). The requirement of resultative of the classification is aimed at obtaining concrete results that will ensure the achievement of goals. The classification system should have a targeted effect and solve concrete classification problems. Compliance with the requirements of resultative and realism is provided by the careful development of the classification structure, analysis of the object, and the existing experience of classifying. The completeness of decomposition is provided by finding the smallest indivisible elements of the classification system and in the sequential grouping of these elements by selected features, moving from the bottom up, that is, inductively. One of the most important tasks of classification is the correct choice of classification features; that is grouping of elements by essential features, which involves, inter alia, abstraction from the secondary ones. The key to abstraction is the establishment of clear boundaries for both the research and the classification system. General requirements refer to requirements that contribute to the usability of the system, i.e. its visibility and logical orderliness. Clarity in the names of classification elements and groups will provide the compactness of the classification, and unambiguity will avoid duplication of notions in the names and ambiguity in the interpretation of features. The use of taxonomic units of classification will logically arrange the elements into groups and subsystems.

In order to determine the structure of the future classification, it is critical to carefully study not only the object of classification but also the hierarchical organization of classification elements and their connections. At the initial stage of the development of the classification system, it can be assumed that the structure will be combined, namely, faceted and sequential. The facet structure is based on the principle of ordering by facets, according to the features of classification in our case. The main object of classification- IF-is located in the center of the facet structure, and the facets correspond to classification groups according to various features, connected with the center by radial relations. The structure of classification groups is more likely to be formed on the basis of a sequential structure, where the basic principle is "each with the previous, each with the next". Since one of the properties of the classification is the possibility of its extension, it is advisable to limit the classification of IFs only to scientific and general-purpose EAs, taking national and regional atlases as a standard. With this approach, it is extremely important to meticulously create a classification structure of the classification that will allow its modification for EAs and the list of IFs of any theme and purpose. It should be noted that the AtP approach to creating EAs has a notable limitation related to the AtP developers' vision of the EA concept. For example, one team of AtP developers may attach significant importance to such EA content elements as charts, while another will consider these elements only as a supplement to maps. As a result, the number of available IFs of these two AtPs will differ. The volume of the IFs library of the AtP is also influenced by the experience of creating EAs of various themes and purposes, which certainly differs from team to team. In order for the classification to be universal, it is extremely important to take into account all views on the concept of the EA and possible IFs. However, the creation of a classification involves not only the fixation of empirical material of different origins (which is sufficient for the library of IFs), but also its organization on a certain principle (selection of classification features and grouping methods). The latter, one way or another, is carried out under the influence of the subjective views of the authors of the classification. Therefore, unfortunately, it is not possible to develop a classification mechanism that could achieve the status of a pattern (template) and could be repeatedly applied at this stage of consolidation of various cartographic schools.

The practical impossibility of creating a unified classification of IFs today is not a problem because it plays primarily an auxiliary role for AtP developers, being an artificial classification. The purposeof its development is to clearly systematize the experience of creating and implementing IFs in EAs created using the concrete AtP. The obtained result can be considered as a source for evaluating the interactivity and functionality of the developed EAs (primarily within the products of the one AtP). In addition, the classification provides materials for analytical research. Its very creation is a research work, which also affects the revision of the theoretical and practical provisions not only of the development and use of the IFs, but also of the EA and the AtP itself. The finished classification of IFs of the AtP is useful for authors of thematic EAs, who get the opportunity to quickly find the necessary functions and connections between them. We are skeptical about the significance of the classification for end users, since it is more important for them to know the IFs and the functionality of the concrete EA, which are usually described in detail in the accompanying documentation and user manual.

Conclusions and outlook

The article reveals the content of the theoretical and methodological stage of creating the classification system of IFs of the EA. The formation of the theoretical and methodological provisions of the research involved the accomplishment of four intermediate goals, for each of which concrete tasks were identified. The first goal was to analyze the existing classifications of IFs and the theoretical basis of their creation. Among the two classifications of IFs directly intended for EA, it was found that only the classification (Sieber & Cron, 2019) has been developed in detail and corresponds to the current level of the EA development. It was decided not to improve this classification, but to create a new one. This is due to three factors: the authors cover almost no theoretical and methodological principles of classification development, which complicates its improvement by other research teams; we do not completely agree with the vision of the EA concept and the interpretation of the initial notions; we have a different idea of the mechanism of classifying IFs and the allocation of classification groups.

The second goal was to form the terminological apparatus of the research object and classification system. To achieve it, the place of the IF in the system of notions of interactive and atlas cartography was initially defined, which implied the consideration of the following notions: EA elements, atlas interaction, EA representation, EA interactivity, atlas interaction operator, EA functionality, interactive tool. The IF of the EA is defined by us as the concrete change of the EA representation. After that, the basic notions of the classification system of IFs were established: classification element, classification object, general principle of classifying, and the main feature (basis) of classifying.

Fulfillment of the third goal involved the formation and study of a set of classification objects - IFs. Essential (interactivity, resultative, visibility, duration, unambiguity) and non-essential (passivity, extensibility) properties of the IF are determined. The characteristic of the IF is called an indicator obtained by evaluating a certain set of the IF properties (first of all, essential ones). Examples of such characteristics are offered as quality, efficiency, usefulness, and popularity. The varieties of IFs of the EA by origin, purpose, and operands are determined. The formation of the IFs library (the set of classification objects) was carried out empirically and was based on the analysis of both EAs (the full list is available at: https://bit.ly/3wL35uu) and literature sources on the topic. One hundred seventy-nine IFs of the EA have been preliminarily identified.

The methodological basis of the classification system was determined after the formation of the terminological apparatus of the classification system and the allocation of the set of classification objects. By kind, the future classification is special, artificial, intensional, multilevel, empirical, and taxonomic. Among the general properties of the classification system, the following were allocated: complexity, integrity, focus, openness, persistence, flexibility and effectiveness. In developing the classification system of IFs, the following classification requirements were specified: requirements for the goals (resultative and realism); integrity requirements (completeness of decomposition and sequence of decomposition); adequacy requirements (correctness of features); and general requirements (compactness, simplicity and clarity, visibility, unambiguous names of groups, bases, elements). At the initial stage of development of the classification system of IFs, it can be assumed that the structure will be combined, namely, faceted and sequential. The classification will be intended for developers of AtPs and authors of EAs. Its creation will help to solve the following tasks:

• Systematization of experience in creating and implementing IFs of EAs;

• Evaluation of interactivity and functionality of EAs;

• Review of the theoretical provisions of atlas cartography, finding new IFs and connections between existing ones;

• Accelerating the development of EAs by authors-us- ers of the AtP;

• Demonstration of the interactive capabilities of the AtP.

The scope of the classification will be limited to scientific and general-purpose EAs but will include possible extension to EAs of any theme and purpose.

The second stage of creating the classification system of IFs of the EA is the practical implementation of the classification, which will be reflected in future publications. The research results can be used at the theoretical level of designing the classification of IFs not only for the EA but also for other applications where the classification object is the IF. The proposed terminological apparatus may be of interest to the whole of interactive cartography because such general theoretical notions as IF, interactivity, and interaction are considered.

References

1. Albrecht, J. H. (1996, January 21-25). Universal GIS operations for environmental modeling [Paper presentation]. The 3rd International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, Argentina.

2. Balciunas, A., & Dumbliauskiene, M. (2011, May 19-20). Qualimetric research method application in high interactivity level functionality assessment of Internet maps [Paper presentation]. The 8th International Conference on Environmental Engineering, Vilnius, Lithuania.

3. Balciunas, A. (2011). The Possibilities for Functionality Research on Interactive Internet Maps. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 46(2), 66-73. DOI: 10.3138/ carto.46.2.66

4. Balciunas, A. (2012, September 13-14). Web Maps Functionality Analysis of the National Atlases [Paper presentation]. V Vseukrainska naukovo-praktychna konferentsiia `Natsionalni atlasy u formuvanni hlobalnoho informatsiinoho prostoru' [The 5th All-Ukrainian scientific and practical conference `National atlases in the formation of the global information space'], Kyiv, Ukraine.

5. Balciunas, A., & Beconyte, G. (2015). Research on User Preferences for the Functionality of Web Maps. In C. R. Sluter, C. B. M. Cruz & P. M. L. de Menezes (Eds.), Cartography-Maps Connecting the World (pp. 45-57). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-17738-0_4

6. Bar, H., & Sieber, R. (1997, June 23-27). Atlas of Switzerland- Multimedia Version. Concepts, Functionality and Interactive Techniques [Paper presentation]. The 18th International Cartographic Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.

7. Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Interface. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved April 03, 2021, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ dictionary/english/interface

8. Cartwright, W., Crampton, J., Gartner, G., Miller, S., Mitchell, K., Siekierska, E, et al. (2001). Geospatial information visualization user interface issues. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 28(1), 45-60. DOI:10.1559/152304001782173961

9. Chabaniuk, V. (2018). Reliatsiina kartohrafiia: Teoriia ta praktyka [Relational cartography: Theory and practice]. Kyiv: Institute of Geography of the NAS of Ukraine. Retrieved from https://igu.org.ua/sites/default/files/pdf- text/relational-cart.pdf (in Ukranian).

10. Chabaniuk, V. S., Kolimasov, I. M., & Krakovskyi, S. P. (2021). Critical Systemic Properties of Electronic Atlases of New Generation. Part 1: Problem and Research Methods. Kibernetyka ta obchysliuvalna tekhnika [Cybernetics and Computer Engineering Journal], 204(2), 20-48. DOI: 10.15407/ kvt204.02.020

11. Crampton, J. W. (2002). Interactivity types in geographic visualization. Cartography and geographic information science, 29(2), 85-98. DOI: 10.1559/152304002782053314

12. Cron, J. (2006a). Graphische Benutzeroberflachen interaktiver Atlanten [Graphical user interfaces of interactive atlases] (Master's thesis, University of Applied Sciences Dresden (HTW Dresden), Dresden, Germany). Retrieved from http://www.ika.ethz.ch/studium/diplomarbeit/ 2006_cron_bericht.pdf

13. Cron, J. (2006b). Kriterienkatalog Umsetzung von Funktionen interaktiver Atlanten [Implementation of the Criteria Catalog for Interactive Atlas Functions]. Retrieved from http://www.ika.ethz.ch/studium/diplomarbeit/ 2006_cron_katalog.pdf

14. Cron, J., Sieber, R., & Hurni, L. (2007, August 4-10). Guidelines to Optimized Graphical User Interfaces of Interactive Atlases [Paper presentation]. The 13th International Cartographic Conference, Moscow, Russia.

15. Cron, J., Wiesmann, S., & Hurni, L. (2008). Facilitating the handling of interactive atlases by dynamic grouping of functions-the example of "Smart Legend". In A. Moore & I. Drecki (Eds.), Geospatial Vision: New Dimensions in Cartography (pp. 1-18). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3- 540-70970-1_1

16. Gotz, D, & Zhou, M. X. (2009). Characterizing users' visual analytic activity for insight provenance. Information Visualization, 8(1), 42- 55. DOI: 10.1057/ivs.2008.31

17. Hornb^k, K., & Oulasvirta, A. (2017, May 6-11). What is interaction? [Paper presentation]. The 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, United States.

18. Huber, S., Jeller, P., & Ruegsegger, M. (2005, July 9-16). Thinking Modular-Towards a Pluggable Atlas User Interface [Paper presentation]. The 22nd International cartographic conference, La Coruna, Spain.

19. Hurni, L. (2005). Anwendung kartographischer medien im Rahmen aktueller I+K-Technologien [Application of cartographic media within the framework of current I+K technologies]. KN-Journal of Cartography and Geographic Information, 55(5), 244-249. DOI: 10.1007/BF03544020

20. Hurni, L. (2008). Multimedia Atlas Information Systems. In S. Shekhar & H. Xiong (Eds.), Encyclopedia of GIS (pp. 759-763). Boston: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-35973-1_847

21. Kharchenko, A. S. (1974) K voprosu obshchei klassyfykatsyy kart [On the issue of general classification of maps]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka (in Russian).

22. Krakovskyi, S. P. (2021). Interaktyvnist v atlasnii kartohrafii [Interactivity in atlas cartography] (Unpublished master's thesis). National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353849419_Interactivity_in_Atlas_ Cartography_Interaktivnist_v_atlasnij_kartografii_Interaktivnost_v_atlasnoj_ kartografii (in Ukrainian).

23. Krakovskyi, S., & Kurach, T. (2021). Evoliutsiia pohliadiv v atlasnii kartohrafii: vid kontseptsii paperovoho atlasu do atlasnoi platformy [The evolution of views in atlas cartography: from paper atlas concept to atlas platform]. Visnyk Kyivskogo nacionalnogo universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka, Geografiya [Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Geography], 78/79 (3/4), 60-68. DOI: 10.17721/1728-2721.2020.7879.9 (in Ukrainian).

24. Kurach, T. M. (2010). Suchasni pidkhody do klasyfikuvannia heohrafichnykh kart [Modern approaches to the classification of geographic maps]. Visnyk heodezii ta kartohrafii [Bulletin of Geodesy and Cartography], (6),15-19 (in Ukrainian).

25. Kurach, T. M. (2011). Teoretyko-metodolohichnyi riven klasyfikuvannia (na prykladi systematyzatsii heohrafichnykh kart) [Theoretical and methodological level of classification (on the example of systematization of geographic maps]. Visnyk heodezii ta kartohrafii [Bulletin of Geodesy and Cartography], (6),16-20 (in Ukrainian).

26. Lindholm, M., & Sarjakoski, T. (1994). Designing a visualization user interface. In A. M. MacEachren & D. R. F. Taylor (Eds.), Visualization in modern cartography (pp. 167-184). Great Yarmouth: Pergamon. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-042415-6.50016-8

27. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Interface. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved April 03, 2021, Retrieved from https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/interface

28. Miller, S. (1999). Design of multimedia mapping products. In W. Cartwright, M. P. Peterson & G. Gartner (Eds.), Multimedia cartography (pp. 51-63). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-36651-5_7

29. Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

30. Omelchenko, V. V. (2008). Obshchaya teoriya klassifikacii. CH. 1: Osnovy sistemologii poznaniya dejstvitel'nosti [General theory of classification. Part 1: Fundamentals of the systemology of cognition of reality]. Moscow: OOO "IPC `Maska'" (in Russian).

31. Ormeling, F. (1996). Functionality of electronic school atlases [Paper presentation]. Seminar on Electronic Atlases II, Prague, Czech.

32. Ormeling, F., & van Elzakker, C. P. J. M. (2009, November 15-21). Digital atlas user requirements and use scenarios [Paper presentation]. The 24th International Cartographic Conference, Santiago de Chile, Chile.

33. Parush, A., Pulsifer, P., Philip, K., & Dunn, G. (2006). Understanding through structure: The challenges of information and navigation architecture in cybercartography. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 41(1), 21-34. DOI: 10.3138/4383-1643- R163-6R25

34. Persson, D., Gartner, G., & Buchroithner, M. (2006). Towards a typology of interactivity functions for visual map exploration. In E. Stefanakis, M. P. Peterson, C. Armenakis & V. Delis (Eds.), Geographic hypermedia (pp. 275-292). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-34238-0_15

35. Roth, R. E. (2011). Interacting with Maps: The science and practice of cartographic interaction (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, USA). Retrieved from https://submit-etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/1243

36. Roth, R. E. (2013). Interactive maps: What we know and what we need to know. Journal of Spatial Information Science, (6), 59-115. DOI: 10.5311/JOSIS.2013.6.105.

37. Schneider, B. (2001, August 6-10). GIS functionality in multimedia atlases: spatial analysis for everyone [Paper presentation]. The 20th International Cartographic Conference, Beijing, China.

38. Scheider, B. (2002). GIS-Funktionen in Atlas-Informationssystemen [GIS functions in Atlas information systems] (Doctoral dissertation, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland). Retrieved from https://www.research- collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/146681/eth-25643-02.pdf

39. Sieber, R., & Huber, S. (2007). Atlas of Switzerland 2-A highly interactive thematic national atlas. In W. Cartwright, M. P. Peterson & G. Gartner (Eds.) Multimedia cartography (pp. 161-182). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-36651-5_12.

40. Sieber, R., & Cron, J. (2019). Atlas Functionality: Interactive Functions and Tools. In Atlas Cookbook. Retrieved from https://atlas.icaci.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Cookbook_9-Atlas_Functionality.pdf

41. Subbotin, A. L. (2001). Klassifikacii [Classifications]. Moscow: IF RAN (in Russian).

42. Tikunov, V. S. (1997). Klassifikacii v geografii: renessans ili uvyadanie? (opyt formal'nyh klassifikacij) [Classifications in geography: renaissance or decline? (the experience of formal classifications)]. Moscow- Smolensk: SGU (in Russian).

43. Topchiiev, O. H. (2005). Suspilno-heohrafichni doslidzhennia: metodolohiia, metody, metodyky: navch. posibnyk [Socio-geographical research: methodology, methods, techniques: tutorial]. Odesa: Astroprynt (in Ukrainian).

44. van Elzakker, C. P. J. M. (2004). The use of maps in the exploration of geographic data (Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands). Retrieved from https://webapps.itc.utwente.nl/librarywww/ papers_2004/phd/vanelzakker.pdf

45. van Leeuwen, S. W. (1996). Het Evalueren von Geografische Software [Evaluating Geographic Software] (Master's thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands).

46. You, M., Chen, C. W., Liu, H., & Lin, H. (2007). A usability evaluation of web map zoom and pan functions. International Journal of Design, 1(1), 15-25.

47. Zhang, Q., Kraak, M. J., & Blok, C. A. (2016). Structuring Relations between User Tasks and Interactive Tasks Using a Visual Problem-Solving Approach. In G. Gartner, M. Jobst & H. Huang (Eds.), Progress in Cartography (pp. 101-114). Cham: Springer.

Анотація

Класифікація інтерактивних функцій електронного атласу: теоретико-методологічні засади створення

С. Краковський, асп. Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка, Київ, Україна

Т. Курач, канд. геогр. наук, доц. Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка, Київ, Україна

За понад 30-річну історію існування електронних атласів широковідомі лише дві класифікації інтерактивних функцій, призначені безпосередньо для електронного атласу. Крім того, теоретичні аспекти розроблення цих класифікації були висвітлені недостатньо, що ускладнює їхнє подальше удосконалення.

Метою статті є розроблення теоретико-методологічних засад створення класифікаційної системи інтерактивних функцій електронного атласу. Для досягнення мети було поставлено чотири проміжні цілі: з'ясування питання необхідності створення нової класифікації чи доопрацювання існуючих; формування понятійно-термінологічного апарату об'єкта дослідження та класифікаційної системи; формування множини класифікаційних об'єктів - інтерактивних функцій; розроблення методологічних засад класифікаційної системи. Визначено місце інтерактивних функцій у системі понять інтерактивної та атласної картографії, що передбачало розгляд таких понять: елементи електронного атласу, атласна взаємодія, представлення електронного атласу, інтерактивність електронного атласу, оператор атласної взаємодії, функціональність електронного атласу, інтерактивний інструмент. Встановлено такі основні поняття класифікаційної системи інтерактивних функцій: класифікаційний елемент, класифікаційний об'єкт, загальний принцип класифікування, головна ознака (основа) класифікування. Визначено суттєві (інтерактивність, результативність, наочність, тривалість, однозначність) і несуттєві (пасивність, розширюваність) властивості інтерактивної функції, її характеристики та різновиди. Попередньо ідентифіковано 179 інтерактивних функцій електронного атласу, які будуть розподілені за класифікаційними групами на основі їхнього призначення. Класифікація буде призначена для розробників атласних платформ та авторів електронних атласів. Її створення допоможе вирішувати такі завдання: систематизація досвіду зі створення та імплементації інтерактивних функцій електронних атласів; оцінювання інтерактивності та функціональності електронних атласів; перегляд теоретичних положень електронного атласного картографування, знаходження нових інтерактивних функцій і зв'язків між існуючими; пришвидшення розробки електронних атласів авторами-користувачами атласної платформи; демонстрація інтерактивних можливостей атласної платформи.

Результати дослідження можуть бути використані на теоретичному рівні проєктування класифікації інтерактивних функцій не тільки для електронного атласу, але й інших застосунків, де класифікаційним об'єктом виступає інтерактивна функція. Запропонований понятійно-термінологічний апарат може бути цікавим для всієї інтерактивної картографії, оскільки розглядаються такі загальнотеоретичні поняття, як інтерактивна функція, інтерактивність, взаємодія.

Ключові слова: класифікація інтерактивних функцій, теоретико-методологічні засади класифікування, електронний атлас, атласна картографія, інтерактивність.

Размещено на Allbest.ru