For the course's first module, we were tasked to identify good and bad map design principles from example maps provided to us. I chose a largest ancestry by county map as the good map, and a Gulf of Mexico pin map as the poor map to critique.
The good map displayed the largest ancestry populations on the county level and by state (via an inset map) qualitatively. The non-contiguous states’ inset maps are placed in a way that makes sense geographically. One-county ancestries are not colored separately, but are instead grouped together in an “other” label so as to not clutter the map with too many colors. The largest ancestry by state inset map helps to illustrate the proportionality of county vs state, which can be seen in Alaska and New York, where a large number of counties of one ancestry does not equate to the largest ancestry population by their states. The title of this map could be more descriptive, “Largest Ancestry by U.S. County” could work better.
I liked the color choices, the inset maps and the general layout of the legend. The “Other” category in Hawaii requires some distinction as the entire state is labeled the same, but contains different ancestries by county.
The bad map is a cluttered pin map. There are too many pins displayed, and there is no indication as to what this map is supposed to depict. The only information we have is that it is a map of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. This map needs a title and the essential map elements such as a legend and scale. They could use different symbology to depict the data, perhaps using polygons and displaying them quantitatively using a color gradient instead of using pins would help to de-clutter this map. If polygons do not suit the data type, then dividing the map into multiple maps by pin type could work better.
