This week we learned about early history of mapping and also key map design principles.  Based on these principles, we were tasked with finding what we thought was a well-designed map as well as a poorly designed map.  Below are my examples along with my brief reviews of the maps. 

Well-Designed Map

Overall, I feel this is a well-designed map.  The key Map Design Principles (20 Tufteisms) I feel this map most meets are:

• ·         5.  Graphical excellence requires telling the truth about the data: There is no further truth on this map than depicting the correct locations of the archaeological sites on the map.
• ·         7.  Clear, detailed, and thorough labeling should be used to defeat graphical distortion and ambiguity: Labels are used throughout the map, where labeling could become ambiguous, lines are drawn from label to point, defeating any uncertainty about what is being labeled.
• ·         13. Above all else, show the data: Clearly the data is shown in this map.  All archaeological sites are clearly depicted on the map.

For my own preferences and as a tourist to this island, I like how this map shows where key points are, how I could possibly get to them using the island’s road infrastructure, and despite being colorblind, I am able to distinguish the elevation levels on the map which would tell me how hard of a hike I would have if I chose to walk to some of these sites.

Poorly-Designed Map

Overall, I feel this is a poorly-designed map.  The key Map Design Principles (20 Tufteisms) I feel this map most meets are:

• ·         2. Graphical excellence consists of complex ideas communicated with clarity, precision, and efficiency:  This map was single minded and did not clearly convey its message. 
• ·         3. Graphical excellence is that which gives to the viewer the greatest number of ideas in the shortest time with the least ink in the smallest space: In my opinion, this map failed to do this.  The symbology was grossly inappropriate and didn’t tell the correct story.  Much time had to be invested to determine where even the capital cities belonged and if one was not familiar with their states/capitals, it would be difficult to determine what is what on this map.
• ·         9.  Show data variation, not design variation: Here is where I don’t feel that the designer effectively displayed the variation in data in a way that makes it easy to interpret the map, let alone gather what message they were trying to convey.  What does it matter if a capital city has a large population or not?  What are you comparing that to? 

My critique of this map and suggestions for improvement would involve mainly redesigning how you display your capital city population densities.  I would suggest using color variations vice size of the symbology to convey this message.  Then, the symbology could be placed correctly at their appropriate locations on the map.  Next, I would find the “so what?” to compare it to.  What does a state capital’s population density mean compared to “X”?  Finally, more map elements: scale bars, more effective legend, maybe a text box explanation of what is going on.  There is much to improve upon in regards to basic map elements.