GIS 3015/L: Map Critique Overview

This was the first lab in the GIS3015/L course.  The title of this lab was “Map Critique Overview”.  The objective of this laboratory was to give students a practice run on map designing.  At the end of the lab, students were expected to be able to distinguish between a good map and a poor map design.

Review of a good map design and a poor map design

Map 1: Poor Map Design

Map 2:  Good Map Design

Though both maps are crowded and appear to have “too much information”, they are consistent with Disney World in General.  “There is always a lot going on at Walt Disney World” (Credits: Danny Cox).  While the two maps are representative of what Disney World is, a few things stand out with regards to the design of both maps:

·         The information presented in the graphics, should be interesting, multivariated and complex.  This is the case in Map #2, but not in Map #1.

·         Use symbols appropriately to “maximize the map’s information content and communication capabilities”.  (pg. 9 – Lab Lecture – Thematic Cartography Lab).  Is the Map effectively labeled so that the reader is capable of understanding what the map is and why it is important? Map #1 does not give the reader a clear indication of where anything is, there are no legends, no title, and no labels.  Map #2 is filled with legends, icons, labels that help the reader know exactly where everything is and how to get around. 

·         Ask the question, “why are you making the map,  who is the audience, and what do they want from the map?” (pg. 7 – Lab Lecture – Thematic Cartography Lab).  In Map #1, it is not clear what the map is trying to communicate – perhaps simply provide an overview of Disney World, since it is difficult to use it as a guide map.  Map #2 is clearly a guide map and is would be more effective in helping visitors to Disney World, find their way around. 

·         “Embed a bit of passion…..”in  your design. (pg. 10 – Lab Lecture – Thematic Cartography Lab). While both maps represent the same area, Map #2 is more appealing to the reader and while it is still as busy as Map #1, it is inviting and almost has a feel of “Come Check out ALL that Disney World has to offer!”.  Map #1 on the contrary, is dull and not as inviting. 

·         The more important items should stand out, while the less important should fall back.  Map #2 does a good job of highlighting what it feels are the more important things to the reader – the different parks/attractions at Disney World.  Nothing really stands out as being more important in Map #1.

·         Map #1 does not have a Title and without “Walt” in the picture, it would be difficult to know that the map was that of Disney.  Map #2 has a clear title of what the area is.

·         Map #2 is presented in a more “cartoon-like” image that is consistent with those that know Disneyland.  This type of design for the Map is therefore very effective unlike the design of Map #1.

Overall, Map#2 is a better map and an example of a good map, while Map #1 would represent a poor map.

Project Summary Description: 

1.      Began by reviewing the lecture and followed this with a review of laboratory task requirements.

2.      A look at a summary of the “20 Tufteisms from the Visual Display of Quantitative Information” was able to provide a checklist for use when reviewing map designs.

3.      Then moved on to review the 5 principles of Map Design.

4.      Both the Tufteisms and the Principles of Map Design were useful in evaluating both maps.