M1: Map Critique

Well Designed Map

Synopsis

This map is the ideal map for me, it covers mostly what a map should have. The color combination is ok considering there is 16 different races covered, I would personally choose a different color combination. The boarders of each state is emphasized, as well as the location of Alaska and Hawaii are logically placed to their relative location to the United States. The title is missing, and the boarders are as well, the scale can be larger. Overall, the message is clear what this map is portraying a few tweaks here and there and it should be perfect.

Poor Designed Map

Synopsis

 This map is poorly designed, it chosen color pattern does not go well with each other, there is not enough contrast. The title and subtitles are all disproportionate and use different fonts which makes it difficult to understand the map, also there is no scale, no legend, and no north arrow which also adds to the burden. Overall, it is a very confusing map, it needs to be remade from the bottom up. The title says University of Tampa but I do not see why it says that if there is no representation of a university, which makes me think if that is even the a title or if its informing me the University of Tampa is in that direction.

Overview of Module 1

        I had to go over a few terminologies to properly understand how to describe a map. I had to search up the meaning of qualitative and quantitative. which is somewhat already described within its structure but i had to make sure. one of the biggest challenges of this week was to be able to look at a map and point out its flaws. I would take notes of what I found think I would be finished then go back and find another problem and keep doing it over and over. It is so easy to critique a map, I hope it is this easy to execute a map. I found that in the process of critiquing the maps, I would end up critiquing myself.