Remarks on homework 1. Many (many) of you made the same mistakes, going forward on personal comments, collecting impressions rather than offering a well structured and a full account of all positive aspects and flaws of the visualization you studied. Criticizing the work of others must be done on objective criterias, it's not about giving impressions and throwing I like/I don't like judgements.
So what do you need as base material before you can judge and criticize a piece of work? Criterions. Your first course did lay down some criterions that can be used to evaluate the efficiency of a map. It's all about distances. And because the core intent of a map is to carry information (even some knowledge), we may judge it as being a media conveying a message. So our judgement should be about how well the map does convey that message.
So when criticizing a map, you should
The methodology we suggested is based on a distance taxonomy and is borrowed from a paper by paper by Nanard & Nanard (2002). Intuitively, the efficiency of a message is measured in terms of distance between the issuer of the message and the receiver. The smallest the distance, the better the media was at conveying the original message. This idea, we owe to communication theory, actually has its place in a broad range of discipline. When it comes to measuring this distance in graphical user interfaces – which is how we look at a map, the distance is broken down into three distinct components.
All in all, these criteria should help you fill up an evaluation grid like:
|Positive / Good points||Negative / Bad points|
So, to finish up this (rather long) comment. Most of you did not use such a rigourous and objective grid to evaluate your map, as was expected.