Cartographic Skills: Module 1 - Map Critique

This week our lab module focused on critiquing a map using the map design principles established by Edward Tufte and the principles for design created by British Cartographic Society. The following maps were evaluated for quality based on these principles. Each map is accompanied by a short paragraph discussing their design successes or shortcomings.

An example of a successful map.
Source.

     This map can be considered well-designed in that it upholds several Tufteisms. Of the ’20 Tufteisms,’ this map follows the requirement that the map not only be well-designed but also that it convey complex ideas clearly and efficiently. In addition, the map also delivers the viewer many ideas (drought conditions are worsening, large areas of California are experiencing terrible drought conditions) in a short amount of time. The map clearly conveys relevant information (percent area experiencing a particular level of drought) and is not filled with clutter or visual noise. It does not take the viewer long to see that drought conditions have become progressively worse over time. The color scheme the author uses evokes the sentiment of alarm in the viewer. Yellow, orange, and red are often used as colors of warning. The viewer can clearly see that large portions of the state are covered in red or deep red which correlate with the severe drought conditions (noted in the table). This shows that the author can engage the viewer’s emotions. The table included displays the underlying statistics of the map and it is also laid out in an easy-to-interpret manner. Should the viewer have any questions, they can easily see authorship and agency associations and thus inquire further.

An example of a poor map.
Source: Course lab materials.

From a cursory examination, this map violates several Tufteisms and map design principles. The map does not tell the truth about the data (no units of measure), its labeling system is not clear or thorough (most states are obscured by the “population” circles), and ideas are not conveyed with clarity or efficiency (What about capitol populations?). The concept of the map is not easily grasped. The title is meaningless as it has no context (the map visuals do nothing to illuminate the aim of the map) and does not summarize much for the viewer other than the fact that there are US capitals displayed (sort of – many of their locations are obscured). There is no frame of reference to understand the meaning of the graphics. The circles partially or completely obscure the capital they are representing. The circles sprawl all over the map and ruin any attempt of the viewer at understanding what the map is conveying. The legend data has no units of measure rendering not only the numbers displayed useless but also their graphic representation pointless. The design choices leave the viewer unable to draw any conclusions about the information displayed in the map.