For my examples of good and bad maps, I decided to stick with maps displaying data for the United States. The good map focuses on religious practice while the bad map shows information about the different words regions use to identify soft drinks.
The Good Map:
I realize this map might not look as clear here as when I found it online. This map appealed to me on the most fundamental level we have for evaluating a map. It presents notable data in a form that is intelligible and gives the viewer a better understanding of religious patterns in the US. The data is broken down into four classes and the color scheme is not over the top yet easily distinguishes the classes from each other. My examination of the map finds it to largely be in compliance with each of the Six Commandments of Krygier. The improvements I would suggest can be made to this map involve T7 and T8 as some of the specific entries dealing with the source of the data is a little small and hard to read. To the average viewer of this map, I think it is fairly easy to decipher that religious adherents constitute a larger proportion of the respective populations of states in the middle of the US while the east and west coast populations are less concentrated.
1.) Good color selection
2.) Easily decipherable data classes
3.) Clean, not cluttered
4.) Good presentation of data
1.) Labeling is too small and uses poor coloring.
2.) Data is a little old (11 years)
3.) Map has some dead space to it.
4.) Data description is lacking.
The Bad Map:
While the gif format of the good map ironically makes it a little hard to read in the blog, my choice of a bad map looks a little better in terms of reading it, but the there are problems I have with this map that in my view makes it in need of improvement. The data in this map measures the prominence of people using terms like pop, soda, and coke to refer to soft drinks. The principle problem I have with this map is that the data classes are broken down further into four subclasses. This creates an image like the one above where there is a little too much variety going on. Some general trends can be observed such as the notion that pop is popular across much of the north while coke dominates the south. However, I think that overall this map lacks in areas of graphic excellency covered by T2 and T6. The subclasses and the variation of colors used can make it difficult to determine which data class you are looking at.
1.) png format projects better than gif of the good map.
2.) Like the good map, the presentation is clean and clutter free
3.) Data subject is interesting
4.) Labels are easy to read.
1.) too many color variations.
2.) age of the data (8years)
3.) Difficult to interpret information as displayed.
4.) Data is rather ambiguous. Other is used as a variable.
links to maps: