Map Evaluations

In this exercise, we selected one well-designed map and one poorly designed map to evaluate for effectiveness.  We had a list of questions that helped guide our critical thinking and evaluation process.  Below are the two maps I selected along with their subsequent evaluations.

Map Evaluation: Well-designed Map #1

Answer the following questions for the well-designed map:

General

▪        What is the purpose (substantive objective) of the map? The purpose of the above map is to illustrate the wildlife management zones in the state of South Carolina.

▪        What is the “look and feel” (affective objective) of the map? The map is intended to be simple, but informative.

▪        Who is the intended audience for the map (include expected educational level)? This map is intended for wildlife management specialists in the state of South Carolina to help inform the general public about how they distribute management politically.

Cartographic Design

▪        Is there appropriate visual emphasis on important themes? Yes.

▪        Is the symbology for qualitative and quantitative data effectively applied? Yes.

▪        Do the colors and symbols support the substantive and affective objectives? Yes.

▪        Are the symbols and labels legible? Yes.

▪        Are the symbols intuitive and easy to decipher or do they have good explanation? They are easy to decipher in terms of looks, but they do not indicate what each management zone means.  This is why I believe the map is intended for professionals who are aware of the differences in management zones.

▪        Is there appropriate use of graphics, images, text blocks, or other supporting information? Yes.

Map Elements & Page layout

▪        Does the page look balanced—are the map and map elements aligned to the page and to each other? It does, but the elements are not perfectly aligned. Not bad, but they could be better in my opinion.

▪        Do all the map elements support the substantive and affective objectives? Yes.

▪        Are the map elements placed logically on the page? Yes.

▪        Does the map have appropriate borders? Yes.

▪        Scale

Is the scale (map extent) appropriate to the map? Yes.

Is the scale bar appropriately designed, positioned and sized? Yes.

Are the scale units logical? Yes.

▪        Legend

Have all the necessary symbols and details been included in the legend as they appear on the map (size, color, etc)? Not exactly.  The labels are numbers only and the legend has explanations along with numbers.  In my opinion, this could have been better coordinated with something like “Zone 6” for both the key and the label.  The title gives a clear explanation that is enough to determine what that would mean.

Is there a logical structure related to the function of the legend? Yes.

Are the legend labels logical? Yes.

▪        Titles and Subtitles

Are the titles and/or subtitles present and suitably descriptive (area mapped, subject, date, etc)? Yes.

Are the titles and/or subtitles suitably positioned and sized? Yes.

Map Evaluation: Poorly-designed map #1

Answer the following questions for the poorly-designed map:

General

▪        What is the purpose (substantive objective) of the map? The purpose is to show bus routes somewhere.  Very hard to tell where unless you are familiar with the area.

▪        What is the “look and feel” (affective objective) of the map? The look is jumbled and it feels very busy and scattered.  I believe it is meant to be serious though.

▪        Who is the intended audience for the map (include expected educational level)? The intended audience appears to be the general public.

Cartographic Design

▪        Is there appropriate visual emphasis on important themes? No. Too busy.

▪        Is the symbology for qualitative and quantitative data effectively applied? No.

▪        Do the colors and symbols support the substantive and affective objectives? No.

▪        Are the symbols and labels legible? No.

▪        Are the symbols intuitive and easy to decipher or do they have good explanation? No.

▪        Is there appropriate use of graphics, images, text blocks, or other supporting information? No.

Map Elements & Page layout

▪        Does the page look balanced—are the map and map elements aligned to the page and to each other? No.

▪        Do all the map elements support the substantive and affective objectives? No.

▪        Are the map elements placed logically on the page? No.

▪        Does the map have appropriate borders? No.

▪        Scale

Is the scale (map extent) appropriate to the map? Perhaps, if you could tell what it was trying to convey.

Is the scale bar appropriately designed, positioned and sized? No scale bar.

Are the scale units logical? No.

▪        Legend

Have all the necessary symbols and details been included in the legend as they appear on the map (size, color, etc)? I think so, but very hard to tell.

Is there a logical structure related to the function of the legend?  Quite possibly, but clarification is lacking to the point that logic does not really apply, even if present.

Are the legend labels logical? Again, it is possible, but it’s busy and small to discern properly.

▪        Titles and Subtitles

Are the titles and/or subtitles present and suitably descriptive (area mapped, subject, date, etc)? No.

Are the titles and/or subtitles suitably positioned and sized? No.