Module 1- Cartography- Map Critique

    The focus of Module 1 was to find two maps, one well-designed and one poorly-designed, to critique. The questions provided to guide us in our critques were insightful and I actually ended up choosing a different well-designed map after beginning my well-designed map critique because my initial choice had glaring issues despite my first instinct that it was a well-designed map.

   Well-Designed Map

For my well-designed map I chose this one. Offered on the Alabama State Parks website, this map gives park visitors the location of each of the parks relative to major cities and highways. The map is supplemented with additional contact information for each park as well as the Alabama State Parks overall division. 

 I appreciated how the mapmaker chose to order the parks alphabetically in the legend, which provides a logical order to the listing of the parks, they then coordinated this with the green triangles representing each park. This allows the reader to quickly look up the location of a specific park by name but also alternatively allows readers to look for parks in their area in general and then quickly discover the name/contact information without prior park knowledge.

The layout of the legend wrapping around the shape of the state uses the empty space efficiently and is aesthetically appealing to the reader. The color green was chosen to represent the parks and since green is often associated with nature, I feel like this choice makes sense. It also stands out very well with the neutral colors of the other map elements, drawing the eye immediately to the subject of the map- the parks.

     I evaluated the map using the 20 Tuftisms provided in the lecture. Some of the indications that this was a quality map are as follows:

 “Clear, detailed, and thorough labeling should be used to defeat graphical distortion and ambiguity.” (Tufte,1942)

The labeling was clear and easy to follow. Highways were labeled at multiple points along their route, which allowed the reader to identify the name of their highway quickly. The biggest 3 cities in the state were enlarged and bolded, but smaller major cities were still included in a smaller, not-bolded font. County lines were drawn and with the addition of cities this allows the reader to easily orient themselves on the map, however they were not labeled which would have led to the map being over labeled and cluttered. Overall labeling was effective for clearly visualizing the necessary information for the map reader to find state parks. 

“Forgo chart-junk.” (Tufte,1942)

The choice to number the parks on the map and give further information in the legend rather than label them with words made the map cleaner and less cluttered.. Titling the parks themselves would have been an option with fewer parks but with the number and closeness of them it was a good choice for the map’s readability. Additionally, as mentioned above, the choice not the label the counties themselves kept the chart clean and focused on the intended use.

    Overall I feel like this map is a good example of an aesthetically pleasing, well designed map with consideration for the map readers overall experience.

Poorly- Designed Map

For my poorly designed map I chose a map provided in our student resources folder. The purpose of this map is to give a visual representation of the population density for each of the state capitals. Immediately upon seeing this map I found it overwhelming. The choice to color all of the circles the same shade makes them less distinct, and if I chose to keep the graduating circle theme I would also use a color gradient to further distinguish them, especially since many of the capitals overlap.

 The map is noticeably missing the two non-contiguous states, but no information is given to explain why. Either the map needs to be re-titled to reflect this absence, the states need to be added, or an additional note included explaining their absence.

On the east side of the map, it is very difficult to make out the locations of the individual state borders are many are covered by the expanse of the state capitals. West Viriginia, notably, is completely encompassed by Columbus, Ohio. With the addition of a color gradient such dramatic sizing used for the largest capitals wouldn’t be necessary. I would play around with different circle sizes and possibly make the circles representing the capitals more transparent to allow the state lines to be more visible.

Again, using Tufte’s criteria to evaluate this map I found the following design principles not met.

“Clear, detailed, and thorough labeling should be used to defeat graphical distortion and ambiguity.” (Tufte, 1942)

I found the labeling to be ineffective. There were several circles representing capitals that I was not able to determine the name of without considerable deliberation because the labels were freely floating around the circles and not following a logical positioning. I would rectify this by using some sort of leader line to allow the map reader to quickly identify the capital represented by each circle. Additionally, due to the lack of units on the legend the circles themselves have no quantitative meaning in reference to the population.

“Graphical excellence consists of complex ideas communicated with clarity, precision, and efficiency.” (Tufte, 1942)

I found this map very inefficient, multiple times I had to stop and try to understand what I was looking at and why it was visualized the way it was. I did not feel like I had a good grasp on which states had the highest population density in their state capitals. I also think that if this map is directed to the lay person it is not a fair assumption to presume the reader knows all the state capitals. With this this in mind I think a system like the “well-designed” map- numbering the circles and providing further information with the state and capital along the bottom might be an option to reduce the map clutter and visual distraction that would come with labeling the states separately. Alternatively, providing the state abbreviation in the label following the capital title would be a better way to clearly communicate with the map reader.

 Tufte, Edward R., 1942-. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, Conn. :Graphics Press, 2001.

     One thing I noted while looking for my "well-designed" map was that many maps intended for the general public lack the scale bar- one of the areas I was supposed to critique. I ultimately chose to evaluate a map that lacked this map element, but I do see how the map maker decided it was irrelevant to the reader since the map wasn't showing the size of the parks, only the location. I feel like this lab exercise has altered the way I relate with maps. Before I didn't really have the understanding of what went into good map design, I had never considered all the ways a users experience could be considered. I find myself with a new appreciation for this process.