Saturday, January 30, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Lab 3: Photosynth
100% Synthy
In this Photosynth, I photographed my desk in my dorm room. To most individuals, this image may be incredibly insignificant. However, in our increasingly electronic world, the digitization of images becomes far simpler with each passing day. The same geographic information that once required expert cartographers to map can now be manipulated by almost any user with a broadband internet connection. Online tools such as Google Maps allow users to personalize maps based on existing maps from the Google server. Photosynth itself allows users to use photographs to visually represent a particular place, and further, to geotag that particular place. As a result of increased user contribution, the mapping revolution has converted the internet from a one-way flow of information, to a two-way flow.
This revolution in cartography benefits our world in many significant ways. For one, any person with a broadband internet connection can easily contribute geographic information. This is known as Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI). Many current websites promote this idea, such as OpenStreetMap. When the military made its Global Positioning System (GPS) public, the general public could even more easily manipulate geographic information. Through geotagging, individuals can link pictures and videos to geographic information, allowing for further personalization of maps. With increasing input from the public, professional cartographers can focus their time more efficiently on larger problems. When people geotag photos, it allows the general public to connect a visualization with a place. For this emerging technology, the potential benefits are limitless.
However, despite its many benefits, the mapping revolution presents several pitfalls. For instance, the major issue of privacy emerges. In our increasingly visual and digital community, how do we ensure that we are not being constantly watched? Software such as Google Street View has captured images of innocent bystanders, and posted their images on the internet for anybody to see without acquiring permission. The increasing use of satellite imagery poses the same, if not more, threats to personal privacy. Further, this revolution encourages "amateur" cartographers to fudge geographic information. This is demonstrated by such efforts as the Christmas Bird Count, which only allows input from trained employees. Many GIS related issues must be left to the experts. Also, this emerging technology is not available to a large percentage of the world's population. Only those citizens with a broadband internet connection can take full advantage of this revolution. Rural and impoverished citizens of central China, for example, do not have access to such infrastructure.
Ultimately, the aforementioned mapping revolution has a lot of potential for future use. Software will advance, and make volunteer contribution even easier. Given the many benefits to our increasingly global community, the mapping revolution will garner far-reaching support. However, its many pitfalls present several privacy issues that will ultimately end up in federal courts. For instance, my own Photosynth reveals personal information about my life, and anybody with a Microsoft Live account can access this information. As fascinating as this new software is, users must be aware of the potential dangers.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Lab 2: Red State, Blue State...
New York Times Original Map:
My Original Map:
NY Times Map Critique:
Overall, the map does an excellent job of illustrating the election results of the 2008 presidential election. The incorporation of flash certainly aids in the representation. Here are three flaws I noticed:
1. When first examining the original New York Times map, several flaws stand out. First of all, in the map key, the blue shade for "win" under the Democrats does not match the blue shade on the actual map. It is more of a turquoise color in the key. This was an obvious oversight by the cartographer.
2. Also, the map could be improved by sticking to more a standard format when labeling the names of the states. Some states are labeled with their full names, others are labeled with three letters, and even others are labeled with just two letters. Further, some states, especially in the northeast have no label whatsoever. I realize though that labeling these states would have made the map incredibly busy.
3. The map would become more useful if the cartographer had chosen to display the number of electoral votes each state receives. He/she excellently displays the popular vote, but the electoral vote is what ultimately decides the election, and if people have not memorized the electoral values of each state, then they could be easily mislead.
My Original Map:
NY Times Map Critique:
Overall, the map does an excellent job of illustrating the election results of the 2008 presidential election. The incorporation of flash certainly aids in the representation. Here are three flaws I noticed:
1. When first examining the original New York Times map, several flaws stand out. First of all, in the map key, the blue shade for "win" under the Democrats does not match the blue shade on the actual map. It is more of a turquoise color in the key. This was an obvious oversight by the cartographer.
2. Also, the map could be improved by sticking to more a standard format when labeling the names of the states. Some states are labeled with their full names, others are labeled with three letters, and even others are labeled with just two letters. Further, some states, especially in the northeast have no label whatsoever. I realize though that labeling these states would have made the map incredibly busy.
3. The map would become more useful if the cartographer had chosen to display the number of electoral votes each state receives. He/she excellently displays the popular vote, but the electoral vote is what ultimately decides the election, and if people have not memorized the electoral values of each state, then they could be easily mislead.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Lab 1: Good/Bad Maps and Census 2000
Part 1: Good/Bad Maps
Good Map:
In my opinion, the above map demonstrates several qualities that make it a good map. This National Geographic map has a clear title, which can be found at the bottom of the map. It is titled "The World, Satellite Map." The layout appears professional, with four insets surrounding the main map. The insets each illustrate a different geographic phenomenon. Every continent and major geographic feature is labeled with a proper font size that does not overwhelm the map. The map displays desert regions, tropical regions, and arctic regions. We also notice mountain ranges and valleys, fulfilling its purpose as a physical map. The source of the map, National Geographic, is clearly identified. Also, scale bars exist for the smaller insets. Overall, this map is incredibly visually appealing, and successfully relays its important information. This map is most definitely a good map.
Bad Map:
On the other hand, I would consider this map of Malta to be a bad map. I found this map on a website promoting tourism of Malta, containing several different maps. First of all, I am not even sure of the purpose of this map. It has no title, no legend, and no scale bar. The source of the map is also missing. Cities are not even labeled. The map is not geographically accurate, and I do not understand why no points of interest are labeled. The map also does not represent the physical features of the island. The map labels no attractions, no mountain ranges, and no valleys. If the point of this map is in fact to promote tourism, then this map falls far short of selling Malta as an exciting destination. This bad and unprofessional map may be visually appealing, but it is not accurate and possesses several flaws.
Part 2: Census 2000 Exercise:
Good Map:
In my opinion, the above map demonstrates several qualities that make it a good map. This National Geographic map has a clear title, which can be found at the bottom of the map. It is titled "The World, Satellite Map." The layout appears professional, with four insets surrounding the main map. The insets each illustrate a different geographic phenomenon. Every continent and major geographic feature is labeled with a proper font size that does not overwhelm the map. The map displays desert regions, tropical regions, and arctic regions. We also notice mountain ranges and valleys, fulfilling its purpose as a physical map. The source of the map, National Geographic, is clearly identified. Also, scale bars exist for the smaller insets. Overall, this map is incredibly visually appealing, and successfully relays its important information. This map is most definitely a good map.
Bad Map:
On the other hand, I would consider this map of Malta to be a bad map. I found this map on a website promoting tourism of Malta, containing several different maps. First of all, I am not even sure of the purpose of this map. It has no title, no legend, and no scale bar. The source of the map is also missing. Cities are not even labeled. The map is not geographically accurate, and I do not understand why no points of interest are labeled. The map also does not represent the physical features of the island. The map labels no attractions, no mountain ranges, and no valleys. If the point of this map is in fact to promote tourism, then this map falls far short of selling Malta as an exciting destination. This bad and unprofessional map may be visually appealing, but it is not accurate and possesses several flaws.
Part 2: Census 2000 Exercise:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)