That question is entirely rhetorical. Everyone loves maps, or all the coolest people anyway. If (weirdly) you don't love maps, read on to find out why you should. And if you already do, you're in for a treat.
To clarify, while I find most maps interesting, here I’m specifically talking about maps as data visualization tools. You know, the colourful maps, the ones with data points or the animated ones that show change over time.
I often come across these kinds of maps as I do background
research for my translations. They are an incredibly useful and intuitive way
to visualize both physical and intangible phenomena, getting the message across quickly and clearly.
Why maps?
Maps are great for advocacy and awareness raising. They are engaging and relevant. Who isn’t drawn to see what the situation is in places they know and make comparisons? Surprising facts about a country or area are also noticed more quickly when presented visually, encouraging readers to find out more.
Maps are versatile. Using new technologies, maps can show the physical location of and changes in particular resources or phenomena from forest cover to human rights violations. They can be used to visualize indices and rankings, or even to show where different initiatives are happening around the world, helping far-flung communities to join forces.
Maps are a valuable research tool. It is more difficult
to reach conclusions about physical phenomenon in the abstract and maps offer a great way for researchers to presents their results.
What makes a good map?
All maps should present relevant information and exclude irrelevant information based on their purpose. That much is obvious.
A good map should be easy to read and have a clear legend. Unless you’re using a gradient to present a scale, please don’t use similar colours for two different bands. Not everyone can distinguish between colours well or at all.
Great maps also direct you to more information. Good examples of this include the Observatory of Central African Forests (OFAC) analytical platform, which links to so much background data and research it’s incredible. While this is a regional initiative, it’s still no small undertaking to collect and collate this volume of data. I’m not sure achieving this level of detail for every country will be possible in the foreseeable future.
The best maps are easily configurable and the very best can present information at the sub-national level. The first of these features, ‘configurability’, is a technical challenge as well as a question of the available data but being able to explore different parameters can really engage people in an issue.
Challenges
Making comparisons between countries isn’t easy. When you’re comparing figures across countries you want to know that your data is actually comparable. Lots of international data sets often come with caveats for this very reason.
For similar reasons global maps can lack vital detail. There often just aren’t the resources to collect data at every level. Still, in most cases, some detail is better than none.
Excellent examples of sub-national data include CIFOR’s Global Wetlands map (you can zoom pretty far in) and the OECD’s Regional Wellbeing Dashboard, which is sub-national by nature.
Choosing a base map can also be fraught with controversy. Not all maps are created equal and some can even perpetuate inequality. See The Future Mapping Company’s article on the different options or watch this fast-paced clip from the West Wing that has stuck with me over the years.
In May, I will be launching a Twitter series highlighting some of the best data visualization maps I’ve encountered in the course of my work. Please feel free to share any maps you think would be worth featuring in the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment