Maps moving in time: a standard of excellence for data displays
The wonderful Swiss mountain maps provide a standard of excellence
for serious information displays. Specifically:
all about content
high-resolution
vigorous expression of third dimension
local details always imbedded in larger context
use of appropriate light colors to avoid optical clutter
realistic, content-driven colors
smart, graceful typography done by serious typographers
size of type proportional to size of object labeled (type is quantified)
intense quantitative data by means of contour lines (at sparkline resolution)
contours = sparklines that flow in three dimensions!
thorough, natural integration of words, numbers, depictions
shows intense local data information in position without annoying pop-ups
zero chartjunk, all pixels carrying content
many exact numbers provided (labels for contour lines, and the height of mountain peaks)
avoids dequantification found in much dataviz stuff
all about content
great content (the Swill Alps!)
open-source, non-proprietary formats
driven by marketplace ethics, not driven by focus groups.
Make the Swiss mountain maps a comparison set for high-end information displays by means
of this pairwise adjacent comparison:
the mountain map side-by-side against the current or proposed visualization.
For example, compare the Swiss map against what contractor provides,
or write comparison set into the contract. (Claiming your users are stupid is not
a good reason for failure to deploy the Swiss map standard and comparison tests.)
But the Swiss mountain maps – and many other data visualizations – can be extended by moving in time
and eventually on 4K or 8K displays. In our video below, note how panning over the Swiss mountain maps
creates a 3D-reading of the mountains, along with some lovely accidentally-separated-slightly-floating type
and a spectacular elevated effect for what may be a ski-lift.
These effects resulting from slow panning repay study:
gentle 3D readings (without contraptionary apparatus) as well as
subtle separations of type/data from other design elements
(without using annoying flashboxes or popups for type/data).
An excerpt from our documentary film Inge Druckrey: Teaching to See:
“This incredible map was made in 2008 by Dr. Karl Rege of the Zurich School of Applied Sciences. Using arrival and departure data from the website FlightStats, he and his team simulated the flight path of every commercial flight over a 24 hour period and plotted them all in the map as tiny yellow dots.” source
Here is a brilliant map moving through time, one of the best data visualizations around,
Stephen Malinowski’s music-animation-machine version of Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring.
Extremely complex multivariate interacting waves can be shown by means of my wavefield architectures,
more maps moving in time. I have only what the data surface should look like.
All that needs to be done is to hook the surface to data sources other than Nature in action!
Now, what are good design comparison sets for workaday diagrams and data displays?
Well, put your display pairwise adjacent to the most widely used data-architecture in history: Google maps.
Google Maps are used by millions of people everyday to actually do something:
navigate through the real world. That’s the best user test: success in the wild.
Now in the pairwise comparison of Google maps with the proposed diagram, ask:
Does my diagram or data graphic compare with the Google maps data practices:
content rich, design straightforward
intense
subtle and effective with color
rich in typographic information
luscious with multiple layers of micro/macro information,
a typographic layer + a symbol layer + a data-map layer
calm but clear scale bar always present (avoids the dequantification found in lots of datviz stuff)
free of chartjunk and optical clutter
acommodating a diversity of users.
And Google Maps doesn’t put some damn drop-shadow box
around every street name. Play in the big leagues.
