This modules lesson topic was the history of cartography and appropriate map design principles. The lab for this module involved looking through many maps to find one well-designed map and one poorly-designed maps in an effort to develop our own individual cartographic design styles that align with the design principles. My two maps and evaluation are as follows.
Map Evaluation Template
Well-designed
map:
Synopsis: This map shows the six Wildlife Management Area Game Zones in South Carolina. It can be used Wildlife management professionals or hunters. I think the data to ink ratio has been nearly maximized. The zones being numbered outside the legend is redundant but makes the map easier to read at a glance. There is nothing misleading, the data is substantial, and clutter is minimized to the essentials. For these reasons I think this is a well-designed map.
Answer the following questions for the well-designed map:
General
▪
What is the
purpose (substantive objective) of the map?
o
The
purpose of this map is to show the distinction between the six South Carolina
Wildlife Management Area Game Zones.
▪
What is the
“look and feel” (affective objective) of the map?
o
In
general the feel is one of division, at a glance I can tell it’s clearly
separated.
▪
Who is the
intended audience for the map (include expected educational level)?
o The intended audience would be hunters or wildlife
management professionals. I think the information is only relevant to people
with a high school education or above but could be understood well below that.
Cartographic Design
▪
Is there
appropriate visual emphasis on important themes?
o
Yes,
the colors and borders are distinct enough that the areas in question are
immediately identifiable as different game zones.
▪
Is the symbology
for qualitative and quantitative data effectively applied?
o
The
data here is purely qualitative, no analysis is being performed. Adding the
game zone numbers to the map itself makes it even easier to identify the
qualitative data being displayed.
▪
Do the colors
and symbols support the substantive and affective objectives?
o
Yes,
the colors make the substantive and affective objectives immediately evident.
▪
Are the symbols
and labels legible?
o
Yes,
all symbology, legends, labels, and map elements are fully legible.
▪
Are the
symbols intuitive and easy to decipher or do they have a good explanation?
o
Yes,
even without the legend the colors and numbers allow you to understand the map.
The legend is still good supporting data.
▪
Is there
appropriate use of graphics, images, text blocks, or other supporting
information?
o Yes, for the map's objective of displaying the six game
areas no text is required. However if the viewer wishes to know more there is a
link that would allow them to do so.
Map Elements & Page layout
▪
Does the page
look balanced—are the map and map elements aligned to the page and to each
other?
o
I
think the page looks balanced, not all elements are aligned to each other but
their position makes sense given the shape of South Carolina.
▪
Do all the
map elements support the substantive and affective objectives?
o
Yes,
they give important relativistic information for the game zones. Relative
direction and size are important for understanding the data.
▪
Are the map
elements placed logically on the page?
o
Yes,
they use the shape of South Carolina as a guide and size them appropriately in
a way that takes up the whitespace without shifting the focus away from the map
itself.
▪
Does the map
have appropriate borders?
o
Yes,
The borders of South Carolina distinguish the state from the map elements, and
the border around the elements make the elements appear within a synergetic
data set.
▪
Scale
Is the scale (map extent) appropriate to the map?
Yes,
seventy-five miles is an appropriate scale for the size of the state and is a
sensible number people can understand.
Is the scale bar appropriately designed, positioned and sized?
Yes, it’s in a logical space, close enough to be able to
use it as a guide for relative size.
Are the scale units logical?
Yes, I think with the size of South Carolina that fifty
or a hundred miles also would have worked well but seventy-five is still a
round number and makes the scale fit nicely in the white space.
▪
Legend
Have all the necessary symbols and details been included in the legend
as they appear on the map (size, color, etc.)?
Yes, all colors are clearly labeled in the legend as they
appear on the map.
Is there a logical structure related to the function of the legend?
Yes, it is structured in numerical order from Game Zone 1
through Game Zone 6.
Are the legend labels logical?
Yes, the labels allow for quick identification of the
different game zones.
▪
Titles and Subtitles
Are the titles and/or subtitles present and suitably descriptive (area
mapped, subject, date, etc)?
Yes, the title immediately and efficiently identifies the
purpose of the map.
Are the
titles and/or subtitles suitably positioned and sized?
Yes, again the designers have taken
advantage of the shape of South Carolina and fit the title into an appropriate
position above the map. It’s large enough that it’s clearly identifiable as the
title without taking space away from the data.
Poorly-designed map:
Synopsis: This map shows the relative capital population between the United States state capitals. The designers used circles of increasing sizes to display population. The circles are too large and block important sections of the map., The entire state of Arizona is blocked from view. The map is not effectively labeled. The legend missing units removes all meaning from the data. This could very easily be used to lie with data ambiguity. I would include a scale bar, a north arrow, a more specific title, and units in the legend. I also would recommend using different symbology to represent population. A choropleth map could be used to color code the states so the difference in population could be seen without blocking large chunks of the map. In its current state this is a poorly-designed map.
Answer the following questions for the poorly-designed map:
General
▪
What is the
purpose (substantive objective) of the map?
o
The
purpose of the map is to show the relative United States state capital
populations in 1999.
▪
What is the
“look and feel” (affective objective) of the map?
o
The
immediate look and feel is overwhelming and cluttered.
▪
Who is the
intended audience for the map (include expected educational level)?
o It’s hard to tell the audience. I’m not sure who would
find this map useful. Elementary schoolers could probably understand what the
map is trying to show.
Cartographic Design
▪
Is there
appropriate visual emphasis on important themes?
o
The
only visual emphasis is on the green circles displaying the relative population
of the state capitals. This is the goal of the map so this being emphasized is
important.
▪
Is the symbology
for qualitative and quantitative data effectively applied?
o
No,
from a qualitative perspective I have a hard time distinguishing the size
difference between some of the larger circles. From a qualitative perspective
my first complaint is that there are no units for the populations. The largest
circle is 1.8. 1.8 what? Million, billion, is there just 1.8 people living
there? It needs to be more specific for the qualitative data to have any value.
▪
Do the colors
and symbols support the substantive and affective objectives?
o
They
do support the objective but due to the symbols ambiguous nature they don’t support
the objective to any great extent.
▪
Are the
symbols and labels legible?
o
The
symbols and labels are legible, but aren;t always positioned in a useful place.
▪
Are the
symbols intuitive and easy to decipher or do they have a good explanation?
o
It’s
easy to decipher that the symbols mean “Bigger circle means larger population,”
beyond this they aren’t specific enough to be useful.
▪
Is there
appropriate use of graphics, images, text blocks, or other supporting
information?
o There is no included supporting information.
Map Elements & Page layout
▪
Does the page
look balanced—are the map and map elements aligned to the page and to each
other?
o
I
think the page looks fairly balanced. The Title and legend are a good size in
the white space.
▪
Do all the
map elements support the substantive and affective objectives?
o
The
map elements that are present do help support the objectives of this map.
▪
Are the map
elements placed logically on the page?
o
The
title and legend are placed logically on the page. Not all the labels are.
▪
Does the map
have appropriate borders?
o
There
is no border around the map elements.
▪
Scale
Is the scale (map extent) appropriate to the map?
The
extent of the map is appropriate for the objective.
Is the scale bar appropriately designed, positioned and sized?
There is no scale bar.
Are the scale units logical?
There are no scale units.
▪
Legend
Have all the necessary symbols and details been included in the legend
as they appear on the map (size, color, etc)?
I believe all the different sized circles are included in
the legend. However, if some of the intermediate sizes were excluded from the
legend I wouldn’t be able to tell.
Is there a logical structure related to the function of the legend?
It is
logical from smallest to largest, and the numbers associated with them are also
from smallest to largest.
Are the legend labels logical?
They are logical in that smaller numbers are associated
with smaller circles. What those numbers mean is completely lost due to the
absence of units.
▪
Titles and Subtitles
Are the titles and/or subtitles present and suitably descriptive (area
mapped, subject, date, etc)?
I think the title is reasonably descriptive once paired
with the map but without the map it is ambiguous.
Are the
titles and/or subtitles suitably positioned and sized?
The position and size are fine. I
would probably have made the title slightly larger to fill in more of the white
space.
Comments
Post a Comment