NZ Ortho Coverage Map
Posted 05 June 2006 - 09:53 PM
This map will be going out with a letter to NZ's MP's and is a company promotional piece as well as a summary of what the letter is actually about.
Have also included examples of what is meant by 'high res' as m/px doesn't mean much to the average politician.
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:39 AM
This is a nice map the line weights and colors all indicate a very good eye for balance and composition, one of my concern is that the main information content of the map, (which is legible on the map), is not made very clear by the use of only colored text to help differentiate the two classes rather than less subtle legend elements. The colors you have chosen are very similar on screen, and do not have a lot of contrast against the white background as text so it makes it even harder to read those labels.
Since as you said your audience of layperson needs to have things spelled out to them, I would make it less subtle.
I would consider tweaking the colors a bit to make the two classes stand apart more and using classic legend blocks with black labels in the lower right. It doesnt have to be large and ugly with a border around it, you could just float two small blocks with labels.
Since I am looking at this on screen it may be misleading and more legible in print, hard to tell...
My second concern is the language used. 75% complete implies (to me at least) that in the darker olive shaded areas only 75% has been completed and that 25% completed has been completed in the lighter colors. Again, make your message clearer. Label your legend boxes as "completed" and "contracted" to avoid confusion.
Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:12 AM
Posted 07 June 2006 - 07:13 AM
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org / Twitter: @redgeographics
Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:19 AM
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:28 PM
Funny a few of you mentioned the adding traditional legend boxes for the coverage as this was what the General Manager also asked for boxes to be added which I was against, didn't think it was necessary?guess I was wrong.
To make these boxes I took a lower case i in the same font as the legend text and made curves and then deleted the dot and stretched the width. This meant the box was created with the same x-height as the font, means the boxes are different sizes but they fit with the text nicely I think?any objections?
As far as differentiating the coverage's more, as the map is trying to show how 'good' we are I don't think we want to visually emphasis the large area we don't yet have?personally I think subtle is good in this context. Also I think on the printed copy they are quite obvious, esp. now I've added the boxes. To the right to keep the %ages in line but if I remove these I think I will move the boxes to the left.
And I def see what you mean about the wording of the legend now - I don't think the percentages are even needed for the legend, think I will play with another text box like an advert saying how Terralink has 75% of the country covered and the remaining 25% under contract.
Does anyone else think the map really needs the urban areas shown in a legend? Personally I don't think it's necessary (but I didn't think legend boxes were either) as they are all major towns that every politician (intended audience) and most NZers would of heard of. Also even if not heard of I would think they were quite obvious even to the lay-person as being towns?
Thanks again, and now onto to the wording.
Posted 07 June 2006 - 05:46 PM
Does anyone else think the map really needs the urban areas shown in a legend? Personally I don't think it's necessary (but I didn't think legend boxes were either) as they are all major towns that every politician (intended audience) and most NZers would of heard of.
I dont this is necessary, it is obvious they are towns. Keep it simple.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users