This week, for the 1%, I want you to read the blog post in the link below.
Web map design (MAIN BLOG ARTICLE)
We had considered using MangoMap in this module but others tools like OpenLayers and Geoserver link much better with JavaScript, are more widely known and offer much greater functionality. Also, unfortunately, MangoMap stopped being free! The blog post discusses some elements of good design for web maps rather than standard maps for expert users. Discuss some of the main differences between (A) standard maps for expert users and (B) web based maps for the masses.
The following link from Esri may offer some help:
Supporting story (NOT THE MAIN BLOG ARTICLE)
Both articles will offer some help when it comes to completing assignment 2 (the practical project). Please make sure you post your comments by Friday of this week (4th April) - posts after Friday will not receive the 1% mark.
Paul
Standard maps for expert use are generaly used as a analytical tool which means accuracy and clarity are of the upmost importance. This means that standard maps usualy have predefined extents, greater accuracy and clear legends and labels. Web based maps on the other hand are generaly used as a promtional/advertisement tool and generaly is a more generalised representation of the environment. In order to deliver their message quickly web maps are bright and simplistic.
ReplyDeleteThe contrast between web-based maps for the masses and standard maps for expert users is quite stark really. The maps for the masses are simplified, bright with bigger fonts, more colourful and more responsive to clicks (for example, mouse over events might make a marker move or change size). To the uninitiated the expert maps can look more cluttered with their legends and labels.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean to say that they can't display exactly the same information with the same accuracy. The map's "stories" are just told a different way. I disagree with Declan's assertion that maps for the masses are generally used for promotion or advertisement (check out the SEPA or EA flood maps or the tomnod.com website).
Both these types of maps are targeted to specific audiences. Web maps for the masses are generally used by the public, some of whom have little to none geographic knowledge. These maps are therefore, as mentioned above, easy to use and understand, simplified versions of standard maps. They also have an interactive element allowing the user to easily explore the data. Standard maps tend to be more accurate and detailed and can be confusing to someone who doesn't understand them. They can contain multiple "layers and attributes" containing mass amounts of information, most of which is not required on a web map.
ReplyDeleteWeb-based maps for the masses need to be eye-catching yet simple for someone browsing the internet as they are likely to go from one site to the next without taking the time to study the map in too much detail so if it immediately stands out and grabs the attention of the browser then they are more likely to take a few minutes to check its functions out. In comparison standard maps for experts will contain more detailed and informative information that may only be of interest to the trained eye and therefore would be off-putting to the layperson that is only interested in a specific aspect.
ReplyDeleteStandard maps for experts will largely contain specific information aimed at the expert. Therefore, in comparison with web-based maps produced for the masses, which tend to have large fonts, large volumes of information in one area and bright colours to make a particular point, they will usually appear to have much less information. However, a standard map for an expert will generally have a much greater focus on an issue. Also, I agree with Vanessa's comment that both types of maps are targeted at different audiences and depending on the audience and what the map represents, it might be worthwhile to include and remove information as such.
ReplyDeleteI think web maps with bright colours and big fonts and buttons are for a purpose which is presenting a dataset in a more visual way. There are lots of data out there that for years could only be presented in a linear way that our little human brains could not process or visualise. Then mapping the data became more feasible through the development of GIS, switching on a big light in all our heads. Web maps are used as a tool to draw users or customers into the dataset that is underlying and a means of interacting with them. We are seeing more and more of this over the web. These maps are fit for purpose. I wouldn't say they are only for the "masses" though, I think their purpose is for presenting a dataset in a new and interactive way whether that is in the board room, a conference or on a website is irrelevant.
ReplyDelete"Standard maps for expert users" This very much depends on what a "standard map" is and what an "expert user" is and what the map is being used for (sorry, it's the scientist in me). The mapping system (i.e. the GIS) might have a lot more functionality for things like analysis and querying but even this is becoming more user friendly and not out with the reach of the "masses". Check out the www.data.nbn.org.uk for example.
When it comes to presenting a map to expert users or the masses I think the same principals should apply! I think (as a result of doing this module) producing the web map is a lot more difficult than the standard map making me think who are the experts ;-)
Yes. Creating a simplified version of a map for public consumption via the web isn't necessary a simple thing - especially if you are trying to avoid using a legend.
DeleteAs the others have said i think that a bright and colourful map used in web maps has a great purpose as it is targeted at a range of people compared to a standard map for expert users which will be viewed upon with previous knowledge of the issue the map at hand and an instant interest meaning less finesse is necessary.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to a lot of the views above, web based maps for the masses tend to be more simplistic and less complex to interpret. They generally have brighter colours and show smaller amounts of information than maps aimed at experts. Standard maps aimed at expert users tend to be directed at such users and as such may be more difficult to interpret to the lay person.
ReplyDeleteWeb maps can be used to quickly portray certain types of information such as town and city locations, but more detailed maps would be needed in order to determine topography, rivers or road networks.
The type of map needed by the user really depends on what they will be using it for.
I don't agree with this masses vs expert target theme, a decent map should convey the information clearly regardless of the audience or the way of presentation. The delivery medium is different therefore a different design approach is required for paper maps and for web maps.
ReplyDeleteFor me this just underlines if I consider myself competent in creating "paper" maps it does not mean that I am able to publish online maps to the same standard without some serious thinking and research.
Your comment reminds me of when I was at six form college many years ago and one of the tasks we were given was to write a story for children under the age of 7. Writing it was WAY harder than it would be for a more mature audience. This draws many parallels with my experience of creating web maps, intranet based "maps for the masses" and the sort of ArcGIS mxd files we set up for our technical experts (contam land specialists, geologists, engineers) to use for analysis purposes. When you are used to producing a more technical map, a more simply laid out one can sometimes be harder to do (it's also sometimes quite difficult to make a tech expert understand that the map they want to output as a jpg for their report is going have too much information on it as well!)
DeleteSometimes KISS is harder to do than you would think :D
It is important to attract the attention of web users to the maps, which will include using big fonts and bright colors. Opensource is a growing aspect of GIS and the analytical and functionality tools are easier to use against programs like ArcMap. Web based maps tend to be easier to navigate and work with, however, they don't convey too much detail. Web based maps are designed to only show the information that the user is looking for. Maps that are created for expert users tend too have less visual appeal, however, they are more accurate and professional.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the longer the internet is in existence the more refined the design theory becomes. I’ve not come across a great deal of maps on the internet with the look and feel of Mango Maps – but they do look good and I can see their relevance.
ReplyDeletePersonally I find it very refreshing to see a either a standard digital map aimed at the expert or the more simple eye catching “web" map targeted at a more general audience which are not using the Google base map - eek I am allowed to say that on a Google blog?
The primary focus of a great webmap for novice or standard map for experts should be the targeted audience or the end-users. A good webmap must be high quality and demonstrate clarity of information it intended to convey. It must show good graphical representations of the map. This is will be applicable to standard map for expert use as well. Webmap for masses will be considered a disaster if it does not meet the-end user’s requirement and then get poor feedback on the use of the map. Standard map will show greater level of details and make no-sense to a novice. Webmaps must be interactive, display quickly, less clustered with loads of data and response quickly at the touch of a button. In my candid opinion webmap for masses and standard maps for experts should be users-friendly. Standards map should be design with novice and experts in mind. More importantly both must addressed the purpose it was created.
ReplyDeleteWeb-based maps are intended for general internet users, and aren't designed for mapping experts. Web maps contain just the appropriate amount of information, coupled with large fonts, bright colours and bigger buttons which are all intended to keep the user interested and to prevent them from "bouncing" back to their last webpage.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison, standard maps for expert users contain much more detailed information than web-based maps. However with this being said, I believe that web-based maps can be more difficult to create as "experts" find it difficult in relating to ordinary web-users.
Totally agree with what's already been covered so my contribution to the discussion is in relation to an article I found by Doyle et al in Computing, Environment and Urban Systems from way back in 1998, which looked at the potential for web-based mapping and although concerned with modelling urban environments identified the contributions the web could make to such mapping. These included as an interface to and a delivery channel of such information, they speak of the dynamism of the maps allowing users to zoom, pan, identify objects, the hyperlinking to other data and the ability to be able to turn on and off layers. They suggest that such mapping has an empowering function to the user/s concerned.
ReplyDeleteWeb maps for the masses tend to be displayed as simply as possible - or at least come across that way! This is so they are accessible to non-users. If a map seems difficult to read or overcrowded with information the user may tend to leave the page before giving it a chance - it may not be hard to read but it comes across that way - hence the bigger, brighter mapping used in these cases usually. However, these maps have the ability to host as much information as a standard map with the ability of condensing the information to show as an overall or average. Standard maps for people who are used to working with maps may have the benefit of hosting more information if this is what is asked and being able to crowd the map with information as the reader will be able to read it. Standard maps tend to be more analytical but overall I think the same finesse needs to be applied to every published map.
ReplyDeleteLooking at all the above comments the theme tends to be the same, Maps created for the masses are much more simple and easy to interpret, they use more striking colours, symbols, labels and only show the necessary details. Whereas maps create for experts will have much more detail and will be designed for a specific purpose. This will be the same whether it is a web map or a paper map.
ReplyDeleteThe article discusses reducing 'bounce' I would say that if an expert is looking for a particular type of map then they will want the more detailed GIS style map, If the map that they see is produced for the masses then of course they will bounce from that webpage. The same would be said for a non professional who only needs a little detail, if they go to a webpage with a highly detailed map then of course they will 'bounce' back.
As always good map production will take into account who the audience is, what level of detail is needed and the media in which it is to be displayed.
When generating a map it should always be focused towards the user. Reading the comments above I share a similar opinion that a web based, easy to interpret map with large fonts and strong colours will engage a non expert user more easily. The information shown is as equally valid as a map designed for an expert user but an expert user will prefer necessitate more information. However depending on the issue at hand, a simplistic web based map may also be the most appropriate for an expert user.
ReplyDeleteThe visuals of any map are such a huge factor in terms of its interpretation and appeal to any audience! As Ayo and many others have mentioned, its imperative to think of the target audience during the design stage of a map to not only display its information effectively but also in an aesthetically pleasing way. Both styles of map design have their place for the appropriate audience.
ReplyDeleteMaps are an amazing way to convey information, by looking at a Map there is an immediate understanding of the data involved. There is the option of course to then study deep the map contents but only after that initial understand has been perceived.
ReplyDeleteMap are about the information you are trying to declare, some may only need certain items displayed and so as so many others have said, knowing the audience and understand what it is exactly you are trying to portray is essential to a successful map.
The internet is for all users, how basic it is doesn't really matter as long as it does the job and portrays what is required. Clutter and info overload can confuse the reader and discourage further use of such applications.
A lot of very good points made above. I particularly agree with Norbert and Nicky. The design of a map should be determined first and foremost by the information you want to convey and to whom you wish to convey it. I don't agree that a standard map is necessarily more accurate or detailed than a web map, or better designed. Sometimes there's nothing worse than an expert designing or writing for fellow experts - there is a tendency to be a little bit lazy. It's much easier to write a 1500 word essay than to present the same content more concisely and more accessibly in 1000 words. The same applies to maps.
ReplyDeleteMost of the design issues specific to web maps highlighted in the Mango and ESRI blogs relate to practical issues of on-screen display. The most important issue is possibly that you have only seconds to grab the user's attention and so need to make your map as attractive and intuitive as possible while not compromising the information you wish to convey. That's quite a challenge for any map designer.
Late to the discussion but I will comment anyway. Indeed you need to know your audience in order to know what will grab their attention. A mapper/cartographer can read a map as easily as a non-mapper can read a cartoon strip in a magazine. The picture tells them a story and the more they study it the more information they can get from it. But mapping for the masses needs to guide the user through the map efficiently and easily.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the argument that a standard map for experts and a web map for the masses needs to differ is becoming less valid as more people are becoming familiar with mapping through Google Maps, Bing Maps and even SatNav. Non-mapping users are becoming familiar with how colour can convey important messages in maps, e.g. relief of a country displayed using blue-green-brown-white to convey valleys and mountains. and so background mapping can be used to convey one message while more visually attractive and attention-demanding features can convey another, either related or unrelated. Like the cartographer, it is the web-mapper's responsibility to display all the information simply, cohesively and clearly with an attractive, uncluttered and legible design. Web-maps have the potential to provide as much information as standard expert maps, especially as they can include attribute data and multiple layers. It is up to the designer what information is most relevant in both scenarios and how they wish to display it.