Treaty 8 Locator Map
Posted 11 January 2011 - 05:15 PM
This was put together in ArcGIS 9.3.1 using the Cross Blended Hypsometric Tint (hillshade) from NaturalEarth.
The countries polygons and outlines were also from NaturalEarth (1:10m)
I am wondering though, if my use of France and Germany as comparative landmasses is obvious in the map, because I don't want a reader to think that these are in the Ocean... At first glance did I convey this clearly? They are too scale and can be compared visually, that's my intention. What do you think about using Great Britain (UK) instead, seeing as it is referenced in the excerpt.
What is your opinion on the excerpt? Is this also appropriate or would my own literary breakdown be more suitable?
The reason I chose to use an excerpt from this specific site, is because I really like their interpretation of the history of treaty 8 and would like to promote it to the readers.
Any other criticism is definitely appreciated.
Posted 11 January 2011 - 05:31 PM
First, if centering the globe more or less on N America I might rotate N to center so the center axis of the continents faces top of page.
I think Germany and France look appropriately sepertare from the background map although you could enhance this separation with a very slight drop shadow. Since you are comparing the treaty 8 with these other areas you might include an overlay the treaty boundaries for a direct comparison. You could also change thier projection to something more familiar since they appear to be distorted. No need for these to be projected as the base map or globe.
On projections, for my own taste I might use something other than a globe. Winkel Triple or similar would work with less distortion but the same feel.
I think the excerpt is just fine. Does a very good job of explaining what we are looking at. My only note is that it mentions GB as a size comparison where you use France and Germany. It might be better to change the excerpt to match your example, or switch size comparisons to GB, or leave alone... I don't think hurts the message any.
Very nice use of the Natural Earth data.
Posted 12 January 2011 - 08:13 AM
Posted 12 January 2011 - 08:32 AM
Everything else I like.
Posted 12 January 2011 - 11:18 AM
France and Germany not only look out of place, they look distorted to me.
I dont think they are necessary and presently they distract from the overall piece,
I would put them in an inset box and in the same color and projection as N. America. Because it is an inset you could scale them which ever way you want and make them visually the same size as your territory
Posted 13 January 2011 - 04:28 PM
Can't believe I missed the projection of France and Germany and left it as WGS, i was so focused on matching the scale to the globe (so they could, more or less, be visually compared to the t8 bndy on the globe).
I also removed the comparison of France and Germany and replaced it, more appropriately, with GBR. It now includes an overlay with the t8 bndy at a scale separate from the globe (scales are also labelled semi-inconspicuously).
The projections for the inset maps are now more local utilizing a UTM projection.
As for the globe projection, it is using 'The_World_From_Space'
....Predefined > Projected Coordinate Systems > World > The World from Space with a modified Long/Lat centre.
I tried the winkel (i, ii, iii) projections and prefer the globe, the winkel is nice, very panoramic, but I like how the globe isolated the NA continent and the distortion to the Treaty 8 bndy is minimal, it comes out very similar to its local projection (NAD83, UTM Zone 10N, or Albers) visually.
This also, to me, gives a nice balance of not too much water, and not too much land. This pleases my eye for some reason.
Using the globe projection, I am thinking it would nest in the article text better (wrapping) than a rectangle map. The option to zoom will be available to read the txt on the map. Any other opinions on this? Winkel introduced a higher degree of distortion to the T8 Bndy as we are use to seeing it, even when adjusting the central meridians.
I am being stubborn with the backdrop for the inset, trying to stay inside ArcGIS exclusively. In PS/Illy, I would of created a blurred backdrop (like gaussian), but I am having trouble getting through a workflow to create a similar gradient effect in the ArcMap layout (arc sucks at gradients, or i do...). Any references to workflows for this would be awesome! ie, black to NoColor, not white
Thank you so much for pointing out the abbrev labels vs full labels, I've found that label hierarchy can make or break the intention of a map and this made me think... lots.
The reason for abbreviating the countries, is because I don't want readers to focus on those land masses, as much as I would like attention drawn to Treaty 8 with its full label (it is also bolded, whereas cntry labels are not) So I guess I made a mistake in labeling Germany and France completely as this would of diverted attention/ideas? This has been corrected with an abbrev Great Britain (GBR).
Also note, that in my (First Nations) interpretation of North America is of one land mass (not divided by countries), referred to collectively as Turtle Island. I think I will label NA with this and remove the labels and lines as the map now more closely represents my worldly view (maps are ones interpretation/understanding of the world around him or her going from 3d > 2d). This is how I was raised to understand our continent. Much different than what was taught in my high school geography.
So I like how the map has now become a communication tool on varying worldly perspectives!
The reason for having France and Germany as an inset, and not in the globe, is because in the globe, they are distorted to the point where they are unrecognizable in their position (top right of globe). I wanted to have a visual comparison that was 'to scale' with the treaty 8 on the globe. Regardless, these have been replaced with GBR.
So with that, here is where it stands now, and I am leaning towards the map with the Turtle Island label as it is now more culturally appropriate.
Also, for reference, the line for the equator has been added along with a point for the North Pole.
Posted 14 January 2011 - 09:24 AM
Personally, I like things like your size comparison graphic. I'm a visual person and graphics often work better than just text for visual/graphical ideas.
Posted 14 January 2011 - 05:49 PM
I don't think I would go with the UK as the comparative landmass. The UK coastline/outline is so broken up/irregular it's hard to get a visual feel for how much area it covers.
To me, the best comparative landmass would depend on the audience. What are your viewers most familiar with? If Europe, then go with France/Germany - but maybe separate the two a bit - at first glance I though it was equal to France and Germany combined. If the USA, pick a US state or two. If Canada, maybe choose a portion of another , more populated and familiar province......I think you get my drift.
Hope that helps
Posted 14 January 2011 - 10:18 PM
Maybe it's just me (seriously), but my eye/brain is having trouble figuring out how to "place" the comparison graphic. Is it sitting on the sphere, or it is flat and floating above the page? Intellectually I know from the drop shadow that it's floating, but as soon as I settle that and turn my mind to making the comparison I begin to lose my bearings again. It's probably because the shape of the treaty has a general curve to it, as if it's wrapping around the globe, and the way it's been rotated (why?) reinforces the impression that it's on the globe.
Maybe a realistic, diffuse shadow would help -- but it would have to appear to be falling on a sphere. No idea how hard that would be.
Honestly, though, my strongest impression of the size of the treaty area was on the map that have the Canada & USA boundaries -- because I'm most familiar with those countries, of course.
Posted 15 January 2011 - 03:21 PM
Posted 16 January 2011 - 08:30 AM
The globe and shaded relief and tilt are fine, the subject territory and annotation is OK.
-the politicalocean-net line point could be a less prominent (perhaps by -2/3rds thiskness);
-i'd completely remove any references of land ratio to Europe & remove those elements entirely;
-i'd size-ratio reference some of the provinces in Canada;
-I would spell out Canada;
-contract the text by 2/3rds into a non-indented block(s), and to get fancy, to a text follow path to match precisely the Earth's curvature;
Is this for print or web (I haven't read the entire thread) ?
Posted 23 January 2011 - 04:43 PM
I think the map will be embedded in the webpage via Zoomify on a 36"x36" layout because of the extra details.
I will post the final map here when finished. I've considered all the recommendations and they definitely improved the look of the map, and after another review of Designing Better Maps: A Guide for GIS Users (C. A. Brewer) my labeling hopefully now respects hierarchy.
I think I fixed the generalization for the appropriate scales (GBR included).
I also fixed the coastline (removed and left only inland boundary lines)
The turtle island reference needs to be retained, see JPG below, as it is audience specific, so is the labeling of USA/CAN (now spelled out with full words in a sans serif font)
I've kept the GBR, replacing the original France/Germany comparison, as this is in reference to the fact that the treaties (ours anyways) is on terms with Her Majesty the Queen (in right of Canada, Royal Treaty Commission). I would like to go with a Canadian Provincial level reference, but can't because of legal pending outcomes...
Thanks for the positioning of insets comments. I found that placing a graticule grid on the globe drastically emphasized their separation from the globes contents. I went with putting them in illustrator to get a dropshadow effect. The diffuse is something I am working on, a skill to come, as having the graticule grid turned on at large scale, helps me manually do the stretching that would occur to make this happen. Possibly an upgrade for Treaties Map V2.0
In the news? Indirectly, if you've ever heard of Oil Sands, Northern Gateway (Enbridge), Alaska Highway Corridor Pipeline, Site C (BC Hydro), Peace River Nuclear Proposal (Bruce Power) cause they all directly involve Treaty 8 as they occur entirely within its boundaries. Over 90% of BC's oil and gas activity is in Treaty 8 territory.
Thank YOU! I was having such trouble understanding what to include and what not and after your comment even found this article on what is included in the UK, GBR, BR, etc... So please excuse my ignorance.
Great points, most of them now implemented, as the boundary line is now thinner (but white, as are the labels) to help equalize audience perception.
But had to keep the GBR reference as pointed out earlier, its been generalized and fits nicely (I think anyways).
Countries are spelled out, but I cannot place the provinces on these maps as BC as they are irrelevant in the context of these Treaties (they are Federal) and some provinces have their own Treaty process (those treaties not shown here).
I've included another inset of Canada (no provinces) that shows the different treaties that are non-provincial, both Pre and Post-Confederation.
Some Side Notes:
BC is actually suing us T8 First Nations over interpretation of the Western Boundary of T8, they are not even allowed to print or acknowledge that this map exists till that lawsuit is over (20 years maybe?). Its funny cause I work for them and can't even hang this at my own desk.
There have been several court cases to try and get the Canadian Government to implement the promises made in the treaties such as Sparrow vs the Queen, Benoit vs ..., Mikisew vs ... and many more. It's been over 100 years and Canada has yet to fully implement a single promise made in these Treaties, specifically Treaty 8 as it is the most comprehensive, thus controversial even in light of such rulings by Supreme Courts.
Posted 01 February 2011 - 12:48 AM
Thanks for all the feedback and there will be changes next year.
If you are having trouble reading some of the text, let me know and I will post high res portions of those areas.
Posted 01 February 2011 - 10:25 AM
(and minor nitpick: in the text block at the upper right I don't think I would have full justification on the last line of text. It makes the word spacing in that one line much greater than any of the other lines and looks odd to me. But maybe that's just me.)
Posted 01 February 2011 - 10:37 AM
the text at the upper left, first paragraph, last sentence "This communities bolstered presence and traditional activities halted all travelers heading North...". Looks like something is missing or there are typos ...?
(and minor nitpick: in the text block at the upper right I don't think I would have full justification on the last line of text. It makes the word spacing in that one line much greater than any of the other lines and looks odd to me ...)
Dave, you're right.
It's too wordy.
The presence of the community and their traditional activities halted all travellers heading North.
The presence of the community halted all travellers heading North. (i think I like this one better)
I am thinking of doing a slight overhaul of the layout:
1)Get a heading onto that top left description (ie: Why a Treaty?)
2.) fix justification on credit box and switch this with the bottom right 'Scrip' information
3.) to fill some space where the credit box will be (lower right) I am also going to include a Turtle Island inset, and maybe the Cree creation story (gotta get some permissions for this)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users