I find the premise of this paper slightly strange. It opens by saying
It is surprising that the international standards on ECDIS and on ENCs do not provide for specific requirements or recommendations on the employment of map projections.
It then goes on to detail why projection choice is largely irrelevant to ECDIS navigation:
The lack of standardiza-tion on the use of map projections does not cause any real problem, since in ECDIS the solution of navigational problems and the measurements of distances and direc-tions on the electronic chart can be conducted analytically on the surface of the reference ellipsoid without any graphical work on the nautical chart,
For medium and large scales, according to numerical tests and evaluations conducted by Pallikaris (2010), Pearson (1992) and Maling (1973), different map projections provide practi-cally the same visual results on the screen
So the only case in which it really matters is when you have the screen set to small scale and use the relative position of contours and objects to fashion a detailed plan or gauge how things are going. IRL, how often is that? During passage, the ECDIS should be used to plan anchorages in the South Pacific islands somewhere in the distant future, everybody knows that…
Our author then goes on to analyze a number of projections with great emphasis on minimizing visual distortion, which to me is entirely unimportant. In fact, I prefer to have my ECDIS set to orthographic, because it gives the impression of spinning a globe when you pan around in small scale. It is the projection with the highest distortion, but it is a sort of distortion that makes sense. Not that it’s really relevant, but some of you may have noticed that Google Maps changed its projection to ortho recently.
All in all, this article seems like a solid effort to minimize a non-existent problem.