GIS 4006 M1 Lab: Map Critique
In this unit, we were asked to review a list of maps and pick one that qualified as a well designed map, and one poorly designed map, and to justify our choices by referring to map principles that we had learned, namely 20 "Tufteisms," design principles from catrographer Edgar Tufte, and six "commands" from cartographer John Krygier.
Well designed map synopsis:
Overall grade: B+
I liked this map because it easily and intuitively conveys information over a large number of data points (every US county) with an easy to read symbology that’s intuitive to the reader. The map’s title and subtitle explain the map’s purpose, the data sources are clearly identified, and the map layout/ “real estate” is effectively utilized, fitting in three inset maps, a locator map, a legend, sources, and a contextual text box without feeling cluttered or including useless information. It made what I believe is a good design choice – there are 9 outlier counties where the largest ethnicity occurs only in that county. Instead of adding 9 new colors to the symbology, they are white and receive an individual explanation in a text box.
Map strength 1: Commandment 1: Map substantial information. The information here efficiently conveys information and is easily understood by the reader.
Map strength 2: Commandment 3: Maps should be effectively labeled. This map effectively labels common American ethnicities by county, and uses effective labeling by excluding 9 categories from individual labels, making a trade-off for a clearer presentation. It also uses gradients of colors for related categories.
Map strength 3: Commandment 5: Layout strongly affects the look and feel of a map. Despite a large legend, multiple insets, and two text boxes, the map real estate is used effectively and the area where data is shown is not obscured. Despite being well designed and aesthetically appealing, there were some drawbacks that prevented a higher score. The map title and subtitle could have been larger and easier to read, and the subtitle could have been used to provide more of an explanation. No north arrow was used (I’m not sure if it was necessary), and the scale bars are all 0-100 with now gradation for the main map and every inset, it might have been better to use different scales for different views.
Poorly designed map synopsis:
Overall Grade: F
This map’s sins are numerous. For a map showing US capital population sizes, it has left off two state capitals, for Alaska and Hawaii. The legend does not adequately define what is being shown – a small circle is .1, a really big one is 1.8, but this is not clear to the reader what this means. All circles use the same color, so you have to rely on size, but there’s no way to get a clear value from the circle sizes on the map. The circles are also far larger than necessary, with large cities being indicated by circles that cover the entire state, and overlap with other circles in a visually confusing way. They also do not scale appropriately, i.e. the 1.8 value circle is way more than 18x larger than the .1 circle on the legend.
Violation 1: Commandment #3: maps should be effectively labeled. This map is ineffectively labeled in the ways described above. More effective labeling to convey the same idea could be done by having much smaller symbology so that the location of the cities are clear and that they don’t obscure the map. Circle sizes could be gradients of population ranges, and they could be color coded to easily convey population information.
Violation 2: Commandment #1: map substantial information. Because the symbology is so unclear and imprecise, the information is not meaningfully mapped. The same design choices from violation 1 would fix this: using clear symbology with smaller symbols, appropriate scaling, color coding, and a clearly labeled legend would fix this.
Violation 3: Tufetism 8: Write out an explanation of the data on the graphic itself. Label important events in the data. This map would be improved by explaining the data, providing data sources, having the symbology clearly labeled in the legend, and by labeling important data events, such as smallest and largest cities, average city size, etc.
Well designed map synopsis:
I liked this map because it easily and intuitively conveys information over a large number of data points (every US county) with an easy to read symbology that’s intuitive to the reader. The map’s title and subtitle explain the map’s purpose, the data sources are clearly identified, and the map layout/ “real estate” is effectively utilized, fitting in three inset maps, a locator map, a legend, sources, and a contextual text box without feeling cluttered or including useless information. It made what I believe is a good design choice – there are 9 outlier counties where the largest ethnicity occurs only in that county. Instead of adding 9 new colors to the symbology, they are white and receive an individual explanation in a text box.
Map strength 1: Commandment 1: Map substantial information. The information here efficiently conveys information and is easily understood by the reader.
Map strength 2: Commandment 3: Maps should be effectively labeled. This map effectively labels common American ethnicities by county, and uses effective labeling by excluding 9 categories from individual labels, making a trade-off for a clearer presentation. It also uses gradients of colors for related categories.
Map strength 3: Commandment 5: Layout strongly affects the look and feel of a map. Despite a large legend, multiple insets, and two text boxes, the map real estate is used effectively and the area where data is shown is not obscured. Despite being well designed and aesthetically appealing, there were some drawbacks that prevented a higher score. The map title and subtitle could have been larger and easier to read, and the subtitle could have been used to provide more of an explanation. No north arrow was used (I’m not sure if it was necessary), and the scale bars are all 0-100 with now gradation for the main map and every inset, it might have been better to use different scales for different views.
Poorly designed map synopsis:
This map’s sins are numerous. For a map showing US capital population sizes, it has left off two state capitals, for Alaska and Hawaii. The legend does not adequately define what is being shown – a small circle is .1, a really big one is 1.8, but this is not clear to the reader what this means. All circles use the same color, so you have to rely on size, but there’s no way to get a clear value from the circle sizes on the map. The circles are also far larger than necessary, with large cities being indicated by circles that cover the entire state, and overlap with other circles in a visually confusing way. They also do not scale appropriately, i.e. the 1.8 value circle is way more than 18x larger than the .1 circle on the legend.
Violation 1: Commandment #3: maps should be effectively labeled. This map is ineffectively labeled in the ways described above. More effective labeling to convey the same idea could be done by having much smaller symbology so that the location of the cities are clear and that they don’t obscure the map. Circle sizes could be gradients of population ranges, and they could be color coded to easily convey population information.
Violation 2: Commandment #1: map substantial information. Because the symbology is so unclear and imprecise, the information is not meaningfully mapped. The same design choices from violation 1 would fix this: using clear symbology with smaller symbols, appropriate scaling, color coding, and a clearly labeled legend would fix this.
Violation 3: Tufetism 8: Write out an explanation of the data on the graphic itself. Label important events in the data. This map would be improved by explaining the data, providing data sources, having the symbology clearly labeled in the legend, and by labeling important data events, such as smallest and largest cities, average city size, etc.
Comments
Post a Comment