Original subtitles

So, this is a different version of the same data.

This is one that I spent a little bit of time on,

tried to do a little better job of the map design.

This is the same geographic area, the same dataset,

all I've done is spend some time fixing it up,

making it look a little more pleasing to the eye.

But, also really what's more important here

is this I was thinking of it as being more efficient,

that if someone is to look at this they can very quickly and

easily understand what it is that I'm trying to show them.

That's really what it's about. The last thing you want

when someone's looking at your map is for

their forehead to crinkle up and they're kind of squinting their eyes,

and they're making a face and going, "What?

What is this? What am I looking at?

What does that mean?" You don't want that.

What you want is to someone just to look and go, "Yes, got it.

Okay. Oh yes, that's an interesting pattern you've got there." Something like that.

That's what you're going for.

So, I will go through this.

I mean, redo everything that I just talked about.

But, notice some of the things here.

I've got a much more informative title and I put a subtitle in here as well,

so that you know that it's the City of Toronto,

its population density, it's by Census Tract and the data is from 2016.

So, that's all very useful information.

We have a frame line around the page that ties it all together.

So, that's important.

What else? I've got a better color scheme for the map itself,

which is seen in the legend.

So, we're now using a color scheme that shows rankings from low to high.

So, lighter areas are lower values and darker areas are higher values.

That's what people naturally would interpret that as.

So, make sure that you use the sequence of colors that way,

so that it works with people's assumptions instead of against them.

Instead of putting legend up here,

I've got people per square kilometer,

so it's more obvious what those units are.

I said they're by quantiles,

so I've divided up the data or classified it into five quantiles.

So, that makes it easy for people to see how the data classification was done.

Sometimes people will say, "Oh well,

you didn't use round numbers for the classes.

It should be 0-1,000,

and 1,001-2,000, and so on."

That's a good idea if you can do it.

But, often, that's what's known as an equal interval classification method.

Often, that's not going to really show the data that well on the map.

It's one that's restrictive.

So, by default if you can do that,

if it shows your data on the map, well great.

But, often, it won't and if you really want to be able

to show a nice pattern on your map, in other words,

areas that are higher and lower or clusters or relationships across distance,

those kinds of things that you're looking for,

you have to play with different classification methods,

numbers of classes, and so on.

So, in this case, I felt like quantiles actually work best because it's

a good way of emphasizing relative positions on a dataset,

ones that are at the highest end of the population density range,

ones that are at the lowest end, and so on.

So, what else?

I put in some background here.

So, on the last map,

you'll notice if I just go back to it for a second.

One thing I didn't mention is that the area that's mapped,

in this case Toronto is just sort of floating in space,

it's just this white void.

It's sort of like as though Toronto exists in

this white never land with nothing around it,

which of course is not very realistic.

Again, I'm just trying to show you or talk about some conventions.

Is not to say that you should never do it this way.

But, if you have a choice,

it's better to be able to provide some geographic context around the study area.

So, that's what I chose to do here.

So, since I was using Census Tracts for the dataset that I wanted to map,

I put in Census Tracts in the background as well,

but I didn't fill them in.

So, that they're there if somebody was interested in

seeing the fact that there are Census Tracts outside of Toronto,

then they would be able to see those,

and it really just provides a framing,

a little bit of figure ground relationship there.

So, it fills in the map.

I've put in Lake Ontario as well,

so that you see the geographic context to

the areas that you're mapping instead of it just floating in space.

I labeled the lake,

I put the much simpler scale.

I used round numbers like 10.

I used kilometers.

I used the simpler North arrow.

I put the author and data source information and tucked away in the corner here,

so it's there but it's not too dominant.

Those are the main things.

So, maybe you find some other things as well and I will be the

first to say that I never feel like any map I make is perfect.

There's always room for improvement.

I'm pretty happy with this one.

I think it did a decent job on it.

But, maybe you can think of something else

that I could have done better or that you might have done differently.

Some things are subjective.

In this case, I used this pinky purple color.

I just wanted something that would stand out well especially on a screen.

Maybe you'd prefer to use some other color range,

so like browns or greens or something like that.

It's not to say in most cases that that's any better or worse.

It's just one I wanted to use here because it would

pop a bit more and I thought it would look good.

So, some things are subjective like that and based on taste,

but there are still conventions there.

So, for example, one map I saw one time in one of my courses that somebody made,

they used this hot pink,

it was like a bubblegum pink for the big area that they're mapping,

and it was just too bright, too much contrast.

It was a little too much. So, yes,

you have some choices in terms of the colors you may choose,

but look at other people's maps. What do they use.

We tend to start with much more muted pastel colors and then work out from there,

so maybe we add a little saturation to it or make it a little bit darker.

So, work with a more conventional color scheme

and only go to something that's a little unusual,

a little out there if you have a good reason for it.

Like, literally if that map was about bubblegum production in the United States,

maybe you would pick something like that because it fits the theme,

and it's fun and it would show something in a different way, that's interesting.

So, there's always a reason why you might be able to use something like that.

But, most of the time,

just start with the more conventional ones and colors and work out from there.

So, here's a comparison between the two and you can see it's a

before and after of these two maps.

Really, once you know your way around the software,

making the nicer version of the map really doesn't

take an enormous amount more time than the one on the left.

I did take a bit of time, I won't lie.

Part of those because even someone like me who's been making maps for a long time,

I still had to think about the decisions I

was going to make like what dataset should I use?

I wanted to get the most current data,

and I wanted to think about how this design would fit together,

and what I would put in the background,

and design choices about colors and placement and so on.

So, it is time consuming sometimes.

It can take awhile to get it the way you want it.

But, I tend to find that it's fun.

It's satisfying work to look at the finished product and think,

"Oh, I've got something I'm really proud of that I made".

As opposed to the before map here,

which is something that you can tell someone just slapped together.

They just went with the default everything,

really and that's something I always encourage people not to

do is to just go with whatever the default is in the software,

whatever that default may be,

whether it's the type of something or the size or the color.

Always think about, is there a way that I could customize this a bit?

Is there a way I could make it more my own or something that I think is more effective?

So, definitely think about that.

So, here's my before and after.

Think about that when you're making your own maps.

Sometimes, you may want to think of it like a draft of a paper you're writing.

Is that you do a first draft,

leave it for a little bit, come back later,

work on a second draft,

and maybe go through

two or three drafts until you get it the way you're really happy with,

something that you really like.

So, when you're working on your own map design,

think of it as a process that you're going through.

The goal is that you want to effectively communicate

geographic information and to strive for simplicity and clarity.

A map is a form of communication,

just like writing a paper is,

writing a book, making a movie.

What you're trying to do is tell somebody about a place.

You're trying to get them to form a picture in

their mind about a location on the surface of the Earth

and to have them think about and be able to

imagine what is going on at that location, whatever it happens to be.

It could be something really simple like maps through an amusement park,

how to get to the roller coaster, or it could be anything.

But, the idea is that, you want it to be easy

for them to understand and efficient for them to be able to

interpret and extract the information that's relevant to them

for whatever it is that you want them to be able to see or to understand.

There's a couple of authors of cartography textbooks that I admire.

One of them is Terry Slocum and he said and I quote,

"A single optimal solution to a given mapping problem generally does not exist.

Rather, several acceptable solutions are usually possible."

So, I think that's important is don't ever think that there's one true solution,

that this is the only way to make a map,

and if you don't somehow find your way to

that absolute perfect solution that you've made

a mistake or that it's wrong or that your map isn't as good.

Often, there are multiple ways of doing something,

and some of it can be subjective some of its style,

some of it you do want to rely on conventions especially when you're first starting out.

But, think of it like there are multiple paths

to something and you're trying to find your way to get there.

Second quote or quote from another cartography author Borden Dent, he says, quote,

"Good design is simply the best solution among many,

given a set of constraints imposed by the problem."

I like that quote as well is that they both

reinforce this idea that there's lots of ways to do

something and I find when I'm making a map anyway that

I'll usually start with something where I can slap it together,

I have a pretty good idea where I want it to be,

and it'll step back and look at it and go,

"No, that doesn't seem quite right.

Maybe if I move this over here,

maybe if I change this color,

maybe if I put this here."

So, you have to go through this process and it's something that you do get better at,

you get faster and more efficient,

you have go to things that you

know work for you depending on a particular situation or whatever.

So, you'll develop that experience as you go along,

but it's definitely important to think about this as not

just something to get over with as fast as you can.

So, you take your time and have some fun with it.