Hello Ben, Hans, Chris, Rob and Michael,
Thank you so much for taking the time to review that poor resolution version. FYI - I decided to hold off and print it out first thing in Jan and spend a couple of weeks to get this right. I've decided to get it professionally printed (rather than print them myself), so that means I have to get this right as I will probably order about 150 of 'em!
I have placed a low resolution (but better quality than the one I posted earlier) on my website. Here's the link:http://www.digitalma..._california.jpg
The thing with the resolution is that I have no problem exporting a high resolution image, it trying to export the image at a resolution that is good enough to review while keeping the filesize below the 1MB limit - very hard for me to do. I guess I just don't know enough about images and exporting from ArcMap. When it comes time to print, believe me, I can make the resolution high enough for very high quality printing. It's the file size limitation that get's me!
Regardless, here are some of my issues as you all pointed out:
1) text placement - yes, some of the town labels overlap some towns that didn't end up getting labeled. I thought I would leave the symbols to show that there is a high density of towns, but since that is not the focus of the map, I'll just delete the town symbols that were not labeled. Will clean up southern calif quite a bit (wish is was that easy in real life).
2) text slant - yes, that was (and still is, apparently) a major problem. The slant stems from the fact that I rotated california by 8 (stinking) degrees. I had originally placed all the text labels horizontal on the page and then printed drafts for friends to review. The first thing they commented on was that the text was crooked. But it only appeared to be crooked as the entire map was rotated by 8 degrees (with lots of slanted county boundaries), so I then rotated all the text by 8 degrees and everyone here (a graphic artist, a hydrologist friend, the guy behind the counter at our local print shop, and my husband) thought that worked out much better. So I'm going to keep all the text "slanted".
3) to label or not label the roads? I initially didn't have any roads on the map (or towns for that matter) since I really just wanted a physiographic map but the folks that reviewed it said "put roads and towns and put as many as you can". So that's what I did. I didn't want to label all the roads because then it would get awfully cluttered. If you all think I should label each one (instead of just the major ones), let me know and I'll do it...some how...
4) will get rid of decimel places in the scales
5) sea level color, overal color ramp - yikes! I'm sorry you all don't like the color scheme because I went through 5 different color schemes and each of my reviewers liked this one the best because it was the simplest. What to do...I'll have to think about that one, particularly how to handle the below sea level places...
6) logo - yeah, I can't ever seem to export to PDF properly, it exported fine on the JPEG
7) AZ/MX border was there, just couldn't see it in the PDF, you can see it now on the JPEG and it prints out fine and clear
8) sans serif - I'm not sure what you mean, maybe I need to look up some font explanations?
9) bathymetry - yes, I wanted to add that but will probably forego that for this version and will add it in the next version (late next year or so).
10) physiogrpahic provinces on main map - yeah, I wanted to show those too on the main map but it starts to get awfully busy, but I'll try that again, maybe with a different color ramp it will come out better.
I'll play with the color ramp some more and see what I can do about more distinct colorations and adding the provinces and then I'll post again. Any and all comments welcomed!