The first module of GIS 5007 - Cartography was to examine various maps, pick an example of a well-designed map and an example of a poorly-designed map, and give each one a critique on what makes that map successful or unsuccessful. While I traversed the internet looking at maps of various styles and purposes, I was particularly drawn to two maps that were provided on the school's server.
The first map that drew my attention was the map shown below, which is the "Pictorial Wildlife and Game Map of the United States" [Moss, 1956].
[Source: Moss, Ira. Pictorial Wildlife and Game Map of the United States. Scale unknown. New York: Shorewood Press, Inc., 1956]
This map immediately sparked my curiosity because of its busy nature [and also because its subject matter is wildlife]. The greatest success of this map, in my opinion, is the manner in which Moss compiles so much information over a vast amount of the surface area but executes it in a way that is unobtrusive to the user's eyes. Edward Tufte and the British Cartography Design Group both have cartographic design principles that emphasize the importance of "Less is More" [or Tufte's Erase Non-Data Ink principle]; both state unnecessary information should be omitted from the map. If you look closely, any omission from this map would result in a costly sacrifice of its informational purpose and overall quality. Another successful design aspect was the colors used throughout. Earthy tones are used to reflect the animal's actual colors on the thumbnail images and across the Unites States landmass, but a bright blue was used for the oceanic bodies and a bright yellow was used for the color of the title block. This decision accomplished two things: the bright yellow immediately draws the user's eyes to the title block of the map and the bright blue creates a high contrast with the landmass of the United States, which allows the user to immediately grasp, visually, the shape of the United States that is otherwise covered by the multitude of images representing species found throughout the country. Lastly, the animals shown throughout the map are referenced to a legend that creates a quasi-border around the edge of the map. This legend gives additional information, specifically a miniature vicinity map of the United States which precisely displays where the referenced species can be found. This was a very successful elemental design decision because it provides the user with additional relative information, while framing in the asymmetrical map with a graphical legend that is very aesthetically pleasing to the eye. This map is very successful, and it is evident that Moss was very deliberate and intentional throughout the creation of this work of art.
The second map that I chose to critique was the map of unknown origin shown below.
[Source: Unknown. Provided by the University of West Florida]
At first glance, it is impossible to decipher the intention of this map. Bold colors are used throughout for roadways, icons, rivers, and the dashed pathways that intersect the map. After studying it, one can infer that this map's intended audience is most likely for bikers / hikers that may venture throughout this eastern European landscape. This assumption was created by the use of icons showing a bicycle over one of the dashed pathways as well as other icons that portray the locations of restaurants, hotels / hostels, and possibly information centers [icons with the "i"]. The problems with this map are quite substantial, beginning with the substantive & affective objectives. If the map is aimed for bikers / hikers wishing to adventure through the dashed pathways that cover the map, then the colors of the major roadways should be muted to avoid creating this visual confusion. On the other hand, if this map's objective is to guide tourists through the roadway systems of this countryside, then the dashed pathways serve no purpose and should be omitted from the map. Secondly, if the dashed pathways are the focal point of the map, the map's scale is off because we only see a vignette of these pathways with not distinctive beginning or ending. Thirdly, map elements seem to be haphazardly thrown onto the map, where one can only assume the gigantic arrow is a north arrow, and the scale bar is, in fact, a scale bar [units also need to be given for this bar to be effective]. Some white space should be created where the scale bar, the north arrow, and an appropriate title could be placed. Lastly, there is no contextual information that provides the user where on the globe this map is referencing. I had to utilize Google to determine that these towns are located in the eastern European country, Latvia. A location map, or vicinity map, showing where, on Earth, this map is referencing would be highly beneficial to the user. All of these inept design choices contribute to this poorly created map that only creates confusion without providing any useful information to the user.
While these two maps represent both ends of the cartographic spectrum, this exercise proved to be an excellent opportunity to dive into cartography, inspect a wide variety of maps, and begin to make individualized decisions on what works and what doesn't when creating a map. Since cartography is as much of an art as it is a science, every person who creates a map will have their individualized tendencies which form their belief system on what constitutes a successful map. This exercise allotted us the time to create a foundation on what cartographic styles we wish to embody throughout the remainder of this semester, and quite possibly, the remainder of our careers.
