The task for Module 1 involved evaluating two maps, one well-designed and the other not, using criteria learned in the lesson. The two I chose share a similar base map shape, making it obvious to me that one communicated information clearly while the other was a confusing mess.
The map "North American English Dialects, Based on Pronunciation Patterns" demonstrates a number of bad qualities of map design. Most notable among these are a lack of clarity, precision and efficiency, and an abundance of Map Crap. Clearly the author had a large amount of data to convey, but putting it all on one map was a mistake. There are so many textures, boundary lines, and labels in various sizes and colors, that no patterns emerge. An excessive amount of text is written next to each label, and there are too many labels on the map itself. Furthermore, the title is not clearly displayed. It takes a long time to read all the information, so although the map conveys a great number of ideas, it does not do so in an efficient way with the least ink in the shortest space. It's cluttered and confusing.
The map "Largest Ancestry:2000" is an example of a well-designed map. The title is large and clear, insets are used to good effect, the main map is uncluttered. Sources are clearly indicated, scale is easy to find, and extra space to the east of Florida is used effectively with the inclusion of a small amount of informative and useful text. Text size is appropriate throughout, and the colors chosen for each ancestry group stand out well in contrast to one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment