An example of a “good map” to me is the ancestry map from
the provided maps on the repository drive on eDesktop. One of the first things
I notice is how easy this map is to read and understand. The color scheme is
very good, they are different enough for the viewer to differentiate between
the categories, but not so different or bright that it’s difficult to look at.
The legend is detailed and well documented. The map doesn’t show any extraneous
data, just the color that corresponds with the most common ancestry of the
area. I can pick a county out on a map and easily see what the largest ancestry
is, which brings me to another point. The scale of the individual areas is, in
my opinion, appropriate. Using an area such as the largest ancestry per state
(as seen at the top right of the map) definitely makes the map look different.
It still gives a general idea of ancestry, but using the counties shows
different ancestries within the states without making the map look cluttered.
Additionally, the title is clear and concise, describing exactly what the map
depicts and when the data is valid for without being verbose.
An example of a poorly designed map in my opinion is the Google
map from the repository drive of eDesktop. First, there is no title or legend,
so I don’t know what is being represented here at all. I know this is depicting
something in the area of the Gulf coast, but there are also several points in
the Gulf itself, so I’m not really sure. I also see a very large number of
points on the map, so it would be too cluttered even if the map was labeled. Without
knowing what is being depicted specifically, I’m not sure what would fix this,
but I would start with a title, legend, and fewer data points.
No comments:
Post a Comment