8 replies to this topic

[dfuhriman]

The following are two maps I've been working on for a friend. Eventual destination is a Marine Biology journal. The first one is an overview map showing the study area and sample locations, the second is an example of what will be series of maps showing different data collected at the sample locations. Space per map is limited to 3.5" square, B&W only.

There have been a few "third-party" constraints (*cough* advisor *cough*) on the design, such as graticule labels & spacing and the single label on the scale bar, but given that the maps in the first draft were pilloried by the editors, there may be a bit more flexibility than I had originally been told to expect. (The pilloried maps were not done by me, nor anyone with cartographic training.)

I'm also constrained by what it's reasonably possible to do in ArcMap, as said friend's life will be much easier that way.

A couple other comments:

• The 50m isobath in the detail map is there because that depth figures into the discussion in the paper.
• I'm not particularly pleased with the legend in the detail map, and would love advice on how to improve it.
• In the overview map, I fell back to haloed text for lack of a better idea. Any suggestions would be welcome.

Darrell

Attached Files

•  Overview_Map.pdf   257.57K   148 downloads
•  Detail_Sample.pdf   129.57K   113 downloads

[dfuhriman]

I should clarify that by "reasonably possible to do in ArcMap" I mean, "not too easy for a Marine Biologist with no formal GIS or ArcMap training to screw up".

[David Medeiros]

I think they look pretty good, regardless of your "constraints"

Halos on overview look ok, you kept them fairly tight to the label. You could make them even thinner if you really don't like the idea of using them (it only takes a very thin line to visually break the label form the map). I think the color for the lowest depth in your overview bathymetry is too dark, makes the lower left of the map very heavy. If possible I'd thin the graticule lines a bit. The coast line is a bit dark, could be made a dark shade of gray instead of full black.

The main map legend could use a slightly more descriptive title (Adult female what?). I'd make both title and sub tittle smaller point sizes but bold the main title. Not sure how to remedy it but I don't like the white iso line for the 50m contour, it looks like a coast line.

[the_skua]

Hey Darrell!

I really like the way you did the depth legend. Could the symbol legend be done similarly? It's a little chunky and bloated. Also, was there a reason for seven classes? Are they meaningful from a perspective of the domain? If not, it seems like a small set of classes would make sense. Also, I'm not sure about classed graduated symbols. Why not proportional symbols, wouldn't that show the structure of the data better (with the 224 data point as the largest symbol and then scaled down)?

I'll agree that if the graticules could be lighter, they'd be less overbearing. I realize that's a constraint.

I am a little confused by the placement of "Chinoecetes opilio commercial fishery" label. Is that a descriptor for the whole map, or is the placement of that label meaningful?

[KateM]

Nice job overall!

On the detail map, did you consider layering the white isobath line under the graticule? To my eye, the current placement gives the isobath a floating effect. Changing the layering might help it look less like a coastline, re: David's comment. Something to play with, anyway.

Also, I agree with the_skuas's comment about the Chionoecetes label.

[dfuhriman]

Thanks for all the comments.

Attached are a couple of updated drafts.

I tried to lighten the map up overall. By using smaller gradients, and shifting them to the lighter side, I was able to remove some of the darker colors, and, I think, the need for the halos on the labels, which makes me happy. I also ended up lightening the corner quite a lot on the overview map – that's actually the continental shelf, so depth drops dramatically (might as well be a cliff at this scale), so I opted for essentially saying "everything over 250 meters gets the same color" even though the bottom of the shelf is at least 500m down. It makes it noticeable that the shelf is there while not making it so overwhelming.

Instead of using the 50m isobath, I instead shifted to making the transition between 50 and 75 meters have a higher contrast than the others, which I think emphasizes that transition, while not being as overpowering as the white line.

In adjusting the graticule, I also discovered that while ArcMap will happily let you assign a stroke weight below .25pt, it doesn't actually export it as such to the PDF, and in fact if you assign it say, .2, it will end up displaying as 1pt. Which is why my the graticules were coming out much heavier than I expected (and making them a too heavy, as others pointed out).

Addressing specific comments:

David: the title doesn't say "Snow Crab Adult Females" because the whole article is about snow crabs, and there will actually be a series of maps showing different variables, so saying "Snow Crab" on each one seemed redundant. I took your suggestion on the titles. I don't know how I managed to overlook that.

The_Skua: I agree about the legend being a bit clunky. It's my least favorite part of the whole map. The reason for doing classed quantiles was to make comparisons across the series easier, following Cindy Brewer's advice in "Evaluation of Methods for Classifying Epidemiological Data on Choropleth Maps in Series" – DOI: 10.1111/1467-8306.00310. However, I appreciate that that article evaluates choropleth maps, not graduated symbols.

Essentially, I'm relying on the quantile classification scheme to do the normalizing of variables for me. I willing to be dissuaded, though. :) And you're right, five classes probably makes more sense than six.

I like your idea of trying to do something a bit more clever with the labels, though. I'll have to see if I can coax ArcMap into doing something nice.

I was actually unsure about the "Chinoecetes opilio commercial fishery" myself, and had to ask for more clarification. I think the new version shows that much more effectively.

Attached Files

•  Overview_Map.pdf   176.9K   39 downloads
•  Detail_Sample.pdf   98.02K   27 downloads

[razornole]

Hello Darrell,

The text absolutely dominates. Is there a reason why you use such a large font for everything. With graticule labels I use 5pt and sometimes wish that I could go smaller. Which brings up the point that your longitude labels don't even match your graticules on the map.

Why italics on the landmasses. I can't tell if you Latin is italicized cause of the use of arial font on an angle, but if it is not it should be.

The range grade is arbitrary, which makes the science arbitrary. Science should not be arbitrary, nor should a range grade.

Hope that helps,
kru

[Charles Syrett]

The text absolutely dominates. Is there a reason why you use such a large font for everything. With graticule labels I use 5pt and sometimes wish that I could go smaller. Which brings up the point that your longitude labels don't even match your graticules on the map.

Kru, are you aware how small this map is? Try printing it, at actual size. I think the text sizes are fine.

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

[razornole]

The text absolutely dominates. Is there a reason why you use such a large font for everything. With graticule labels I use 5pt and sometimes wish that I could go smaller. Which brings up the point that your longitude labels don't even match your graticules on the map.

Kru, are you aware how small this map is? Try printing it, at actual size. I think the text sizes are fine.

Charles Syrett
Map Graphics
http://www.mapgraphics.com

I am aware of what a 5pt font looks like printed on 3.5" map vrs an 8pt font. In my opinion that text size (specifically the lat/long) are too large, or maybe it would be better to say that it is too high in visual hierarchy. But it is just that, an opinion.

kru