Module 1: Evaluating Maps

    In the first module of computer cartography lab, we learned about evaluating and critiquing maps. This exercise allowed me think more critically about the connectivity of each map element and how that impacts the audience's ability to interpret the map. As someone who has designed maps for public use, this lab served as a valuable reminder to critically evaluate your work and seek out criticism or different perspectives when designing a map. Below are images and synopses of two maps, one well-designed and one poorly designed, that I reviewed for this week's lab. 

    This well-designed map is an excellent example of a strong layout and use of space. The author balances the map elements in way that prevents cluttered information and increases the readability of the map. The map is labeled simply but effectively. The legend and colors choices are clear and easy to read. Lastly, the map contains minimal “crap”. The author elected to remove areas (i.e. states) and descriptors that would have surrounded the primary focus of the map, the state of Florida. By minimizing the extraneous information, it places greater emphasis on the state of Florida and leaves more room for other supplemental information that could be useful to the audience. My only critique is the decision to make one of the geological layers a neutral color whereas the others are bright colors. This decision separates that layer from the others for the audience. Since there is no explanation, the audience is left wondering if that decision was intentional. A different color could have been selected or an explanation could have been provided to easily address this critique.

    This poorly designed map features several design flaws that greatly limit the audience’s ability to understand the primary message of the map. First, this map is not effectively labeled. The labels of the US state capitals are all over the place and even on top of other labels and point features. It is very easy to accidently confuse the location of one capital for another due to the placement of the labels. Additionally, the choice to scale the size of the point feature that indicates the state capital’s location greatly hinders the audience’s ability to determine the exact location of the capital. The points end up covering other points or the state borders which would make it very difficult for someone with no prior knowledge of US geography to interpret this map. Second, the layout of the map is lacking. The author does not effectively locate or size map features to create a balance between the features and white space. The map presents itself as very cluttered and unbalanced. Third, the map is somewhat misleading. The title of the map is “US 1999 Capital Population,” and from this title, I would expect the map to highlight the United State’s national capital, Washington D.C. It is only because of my existing knowledge that I know that the locations presented are state capitals of the United States. Further, the map neglects to include two other US states and capitals, Juneau, Alaska and Honolulu, Hawaii. For someone with no prior knowledge of the area this map is largely misleading, and it starts with the title. Last, the primary message is not even effectively conveyed by this map. This is due to a combination of choices that include the symbology of the point features and the poor labeling/explanation in the legend. The audience has no way to relate the values presented in the legend to the actual population values because the author provides no explanation. Therefore, the primary message becomes lost in a cluttered field of circles. To improve this map, I would remove the scale by size of the point features and switch it to a scale by color with smaller point features, or I would scale the state polygon by color with the state capitals mapped as black point features. The color ramp should be a neutral color that goes from light (lower population size) to dark (higher population size). The color ramp would be included in the legend with proper labels for the audience to determine the meaning of the colors presented. The removal of the scale by size point feature will leave plenty of room to update and increase the size of the title and add a scale bar below the map to create a balanced look. The final improvement is to include the missing states and capitals, Juneau, Alaska and Honolulu, Hawaii.