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 Sunday of this week (10th April) - posts after Sunday will not receive the 1% mark.
Paul
I think that one of the main differences between A and B is that B is much simpler and allows the masses to engage more with the map and the information that it is portraying. The web map lets the user interact and click on different parts of the country that they are interested in to get more information about it. This option of pop up boxes allows for more information to be stored by the map without cluttering the map up.
ReplyDeleteThat said, standard maps for the experts could have all of the same information embedded within it but just not in such a simplistic way. I think that the web maps are much simpler and easier for people to understand and as such allow for more information to reach a wider audience.
The main difference between a casual web map user and an expert user of a standard map is that the expert user will go into the interaction knowing (or at least having a very good idea) what they are looking for, and how to view it. The expert user will have a fairly good ability to decipher the meaning of the map, and so the content can be a little more in depth. They will generally already have an interest and understanding in the area of study that the map is portraying. A web map for the masses needs to cater for a wide range of technical abilities, intellectual understanding, and interest in the given topic. As the article suggests, it must grab the viewer quickly to prevent them feeling that they have to invest too much effort in deciphering the intent of the map, and losing interest.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of each map differs also; a web map serves the purpose of disseminating information to as many people as possible, and so must be as general as possible. The expert user’s map can be specifically designed to cater for the needs of a particular audience. It does not need to convince the user that they are interested in it, and so can be more functional and less ‘flashy’. Saying this though, functionality is key in both maps, and a standard map which is poorly designed and difficult to use is of little use to any user.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo my mind, one of the main differences between web based maps for the masses and standard maps for experts is that the former are largely concerned with designing for a wide general audience so are intentionally easily understood and accessible. With web based maps a great deal of emphasis is placed on the aesthetic nature of the map – so as not to lose online users with short attention spans! Web based maps are great for giving users a high level of interactivity and user manipulation and often offer the ability to easily download and print off. I’ve also noticed lots of experimental type web-based maps being publicised recently such as: The History of Building Age in Paris http://www.comeetie.fr/galerie/BatiParis/#12/48.8589/2.3491 which can be a lot of fun.
ReplyDeleteExpert maps on the other hand seem to me to be more likely to be pre-designed with a specific task in mind, such as a map of the infrastructure of power cables buried underground in a city and require a certain level of expertise in order to decipher and use. A huge advantage of these kinds of maps seems to be that they’re more likely to made by experts for experts, perhaps adhering to industry standards and in that sense the information is more likely to be trustworthy.
With the advent of GIS and web 2.0 maps have the capacity to harbor a near unlimited amount of data via map layers, links to databases, and links to alternative sources. Given the pervasiveness of this capacity proprietors of data now have the capability to expose the public and specific personal to information through tailored web map interfaces as these see fit, thus presenting the question to proprietors 'what is the best interface for the target audience?'. generally speaking relevant audiences can be broken into two groups: Expert map users, and the general public.
ReplyDeleteFrom a design point of view, the difference between the two groups is that web map interfaces for the general public need to be designed as a product with an attractive appearance, prioritising looks over content thus grabbing the attention of the user; whereas web map interfaces for expert users need to be designed as a product that relies less on attractiveness and more on the value of its content. As highlighted in the article, general users tend to 'bounce' from website to website until something grabs their attention and to identify the features that do this huge amounts of research has been carried out into how to develop the appearance of websites so as to grab and hold the attention of the user; these techniques include increased font size, colourful text and attractive backgrounds; all of which reduce the likely hood of a user "bouncing" off the website. In contrast the focus of web map interfaces for expert users tends more to functionality and content because the consensus is that expert users navigate to such websites intentionally thus negating the need for attention grabbing appearances.
Are standard paper maps to be used only by cartographers? And must web maps be designed for all and sundry, including those with the attention span of a goldfish (oops- was that just an urban myth?) - I think these are generalisations, too far.
ReplyDeleteAll media should be designed for the intended audience and when an audience becomes accustomed to reading, understanding and using the media, the design is correct.
The need to reduce web bounces which effect online advertising revenue, has driven web designers of both sites and web maps to simplify design and to a certain extent standardise functionality – not necessarily a bad thing as the design of new web map applications appears more intuitive and therefore more usable by the masses. This very well may be as a result of more general acceptance of the standard tools and conventions, within any web map - similar perhaps to the acceptance on many applications of the floppy disk icon meaning 'SAVE'. Not many users have actually encountered a floppy disk, however they are comfortable with the icon and it intended action.
I think that web design follows trends (currently the use of hero images and ghost buttons) and that web map makers must follow too – currently less is more in web mapping in particular and also in web sites generally.
I think some of the main differences between web maps for the masses and standard maps for the experts are that the web maps are used more so to catch and grab the users attention. This is because as mentioned in the 'Mangomap' article the web map has to quickly convince the user there is something on it worth viewing or else they will soon hit the back button. Therefore as already mentioned in this blog, web maps tend to put greater emphasis on the appearance than the content, for example with larger buttons, fonts and brighter colours.
ReplyDeleteHowever expert maps generally have a clear purpose in mind and as mentioned a lot of the time the users who read the maps are generally experts in the particular field.
The main difference that stands out for me between A and B is that B, the web based maps have to be very easy to read within the first few seconds of looking at the map or very eye catching in order to grab a user’s attention. Standard maps used for experts essentially hold the same information as web based maps however they are made to look more complicated from the way they have been laid out or labelled. I agree with the Mango article with regards to the 4 points that they use when creating a map. Prior to starting my university career if I saw a map on a web page I wouldn’t have examined it unless it had caught my eye or if it looked too complicated I would have scrolled past it. Now that I have been studying GIS for the past 3 years I now take time to look at the finer details of maps. Overall I don’t think there are a lot of differences between maps for experts and web based maps apart from the amount of information in each. In order to grab users attentions web maps have to be colourful and big whereas for experts as long as the map has a purpose and the information is correct then that is all that matters.
ReplyDeleteAs for any medium of communication a major concern is understanding the target audience and their specific needs. In the case of standard maps for use by experts and professionals in their field, so long as the map communicates the necessary information and has a reasonable level of accuracy, poor design will be more readily tolerated and the user more likely to persist with their deciphering. Maps aimed at these users can be more "cluttered" and can contain more detail because there will more than likely be a good level of understanding of the theme/topic of the map and what is being communicated. As the Mango article points out the online environment is one that is very dynamic and transient. Creators and providers of online content are operating in a constant state of live competition. The use of web based maps has become more prevalent as an alternative means of conveying information in an instantly understandable way. Unlike standard maps for experts, creators and designers of these maps are using them to maintain the visitor's attention, to keep them on their site for as long as possible and to try avoid a 'bounce'. The design of these maps is therefore kept as simple and colourful as possible. The increasing use of mobile devices in particular will continue to have an impact on the layout and functionality of these web based maps.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the article, when a web map is created for the masses, it needs to show the information to be captured by the user just in few seconds. If the map shown is attractive with titles, colour, labels…the user will be quickly convinced is worthy to spend some minutes reading the information related or checking on the map clicking on the interactive parts.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, an expertise map is focused in a purpose and the information usually is more specific and technical comparing it with a web map for everyone. Expertise maps aren´t made to catch the attention of user, are created to explain information. The objective of these maps is help on the research or project, the important part is the information, not the way it is displayed, what this means is there is no need of colours or big titles, data should be displayed clear and being representative of the issue.
Sometimes a good map can explain more and better than the best of the articles.
As most people have already mentioned here, there are clear differences between standard maps for expert users and web-based maps for the masses. I know if I wanted to show a map to a friend or family member that didn’t have an interest in the technicality behind the map, they would want it to look as simple as possible. I created a story map whilst on my work experience and one of the main goals when doing this is to keep the map as simple as possible in order to attract as much attention as possible.
ReplyDeleteWhat about standard maps that are used for navigation or travel? They are obviously designed for a purpose but it wouldn’t be ideal if they were generalised to such a degree that you couldn’t see minor roads that you might need to use. I suppose they are designed for a target audience, like how Andrew Martin said above about maps being pre-designed for a specific task, however they still manage to be user-friendly and include a lot of detailed information.
I do understand the need for web-maps to present information in a way that is accessible to all and easy to read. Despite that article saying that the map wouldn’t win any cartographic awards, I think it is important to be able to display your information in such a way that is quick to understand. It reminds me of the quote “if you can’t explain it simply then you don’t understand it well enough”. It would maybe be a test to all cartographers to be able to produce an informative map without unnecessary clutter and detail.
Standard maps are geared towards a specific audience and have a greater amount of detail. While Web maps are more for catching the attention of individuals immediately so they put more emphasis on the colour and font of the text and making the map look more appealing at a first glance in order to keep the audience on the page. Standard maps are created by and for experts and professionals as such, as much emphasis is not placed on keeping the audience as Web maps.
ReplyDeleteThe main aim of Web maps is to grab an individual once they click on the page and having them know what the map is about at first glance without having to think too hard about it. The article mentioned "bounce" and Web maps try immensely to prevent this from occurring or happen too much time. I agree with what Kathryn said about the knowledge of GIS and experience it makes us aware of more details that a map should have rather than big colours, big buttons and big fonts like the Web maps.
ReplyDeleteI think the clear difference between standard and expert maps, is that for a standard map, the reader has to understand what it is that is being displayed instantly, or as the article says, they will leave the web page without second thought. Whilst I agree with what the ESRI article is saying that aspects such as font and scales are important, I feel a very simply designed map can more often than not be far more beneficial to the reader, particularly to those who are not using maps every day.
ReplyDeleteRecently I have come across more maps on social media sites, in particular maps regarding the presidential election in the United States. These maps are very simply designed, usually indicating by colour (red or blue) which way a state votes. They are very simple to understand, and the reader would not have to understand much about maps to follow. However the fact that maps can be used for something such as a presidential election shows the power they represent. There are of course, more detailed maps available that break down each state further, but if they were very complicated from the outset, I feel people who have little experience with maps would “bounce” and leave the web page almost instantly.
From my prospective the differences between standard map and web map for public use are the web maps are more easy for visualizing and people who don’t have too much knowledge about GIS (client, users, engineers) can work with them. Web maps allows the users work with different tools which makes the resource much more interactive.
ReplyDeleteStandard maps for experts might be a useful tool having all the requested information embedded, but won’t be as easier as web maps. One of the main advantages for these kind of maps is to have thematic maps focus on a specific theme/topic. In order words, maps much more specialised in a specific topic.
After going into the intricate detail often required by professional users of maps (particularly within GIS) it often jars to see a very "layman friendly" map, as some I have seen can almost be child-like in appearance. Of course, very few general (public) users have either the interest or knowledge to appreciate the more subtle, fine details of a map, however I believe, as people have stated above, there is an "art" to a good map. If it is readable, not offensive to the eye (in general terms, as you will never please everyone), and informative enough to engage the enquiring mind as well as the casual visitor (unlike some examples I have seen over the years), then, at least in my opinion, the map is a good one. Unfortunately, some maps I have seen have dumbed down the information so much, you would think it was for primary school children...
ReplyDeleteThe main difference between (a) standard maps for expert users and (b) web maps based for the masses is the attention span of the audience the different maps are made for. B is made for an audience who are browsing the internet and have a very low attention span and may only visit a web-page for a few seconds before deciding they don’t like what they see. It is therefore important that these maps grab the attention as best as possible by using maps with bright colours that are uncluttered and with bigger fonts, all so the audience has to ‘think less’ when viewing the map. In contrast A may be maps which show a complex analysis with many different datasets represented and may look slightly cluttered with map elements such as scale bars, north arrows, legends etc and therefore may take the user a lengthy time to analyse these maps. If the main point of a website is too attract through the maps then A is not suitable for this purpose and on the other hand if the purpose of the map is to help in analysing a complex problem then similarly B will not be suitable.
ReplyDeleteBasically it could be argued that it is style over substance. The map for the masses is trying to hold the users attention. The big fonts and big buttons will help promote the map and the website. The information and the purpose of the map must be made known instantly or the user will lose interest. I think this says something for the amount of information the map can actually display, but even more so it shows how the need for a clear and simplistic visualisation is important.
ReplyDeleteIf we compare this to a map designed to be used by experts, it will not be as flashy, it doesn’t need to be. It will more than likely contain more information and the display will be enough to show this, but probably not much more. I would also assume that the user is there for a purpose and would view or not view web maps based on their relevance to their research rather than any aesthetic reason.
The main difference between standard maps and web maps is that the impact of the web map must be immediate or, as the article states, the viewer will move on to one of many other related websites. This usually means a more simplified design, with less detail and information than might be shown on a standard map, with colours and fonts optimized for on-screen viewing. Viewers also expect web maps to have an interactive element, allowing them to zoom and pan, and to chose the layers they want displayed rather than having to search through a complete and often complex printed visual design in order to find the information they are most interested in.
ReplyDeleteDue to Increased mapping technology and functionality the way maps are used has broadened. This is a consequence of the expanded capacities of digital mapping and their web enablement.
ReplyDeleteIt is now common to produce maps which are thematic or analytic, maps which are use-specific or for reference as well as for use as locator maps. Different map types will have different audiences due to the variations in reasons for consulting a particular map. An expert user is consulting a map for a specific reason so arrives to the map prepared to explore it. This is in contrast to the way a web map is encountered where engagement with it depends on attracting the interest of the person browsing. So the requirements for creating a map for an expert user will be a little different than those for a map to which you wish to attract maximum attention. This does not mean that designing for either constituency means that information provided should be less accurate and current or that clarity and attractiveness is less important. Rather that decisions about the initial eminence of style or substance probably depends on the maps’ intended audience.
The expert user is consulting a map to derive information so is prepared to put more work into extracting its data, the requirement here would be to present accurate and up to date data. Making a map that wishes to engage mass attention has the first priority that it must be attractive and its functionality should be quickly comprehensible so that the user can quickly engage with it.
After reading both articles, it seems like as much thought goes into making a map for the masses as one for experts. The differences in their design come from the intended purpose of the map. I can imagine some cases where more effort goes into making a web map for the masses because each piece of the map must be carefully considered in order to appeal to the common web user as quickly as possible. This may involve careful filtering of the data presented, choosing optimum colours and design elements and providing engaging yet unintimidating functionality. A map targeted at experts can expect viewers to have more patience and therefore, all the necessary data and functionality can be provided with reduced concern for appearance and widespread appeal. Maps for the masses seem more simplistic because they are designed to be so, just as maps for experts are designed to suit a more specialised purpose. This does not make either type of map any less useful for its target audience than the other.
ReplyDelete