Module 1 - Communicating GIS

 

In designing the map, I prioritized visual contrast by selecting colors for different elements, ensuring essential features stand out. Legibility was achieved through clear, readable fonts and strategic label placement. The figure-ground organization was maintained by creating a clear distinction between foreground and background, guiding the viewer's focus. Hierarchical organization structured map elements based on importance, aiding comprehension. Lastly, balance was achieved through thoughtful distribution of visual elements, preventing any part of the map from appearing cluttered or neglected. 

In creating the map design to optimize legibility, visual contrast, and hierarchy, attention was devoted to the various text elements representing general information, water features, city names, park names, notable topographic features such as Russian Hill, and different area types. For general information, the Arial font type was chosen with a moderate size and strategic placement to provide essential context without overwhelming the map. Water feature labels utilized the Arial font, colored in blue with a white halo for visual contrast, and employed curved text to distinguish water bodies. The San Francisco city name was created using serif font Book Antiqua and was given a larger size and a light gray halo to enhance prominence and legibility. Park names, using the sans-serif Arial font, featured a white halo for clarity against diverse map features. Topographic features like Russian Hill adopted an italicized font with a white halo, striking a balance between visibility and integration. Each area type was characterized by a distinct font style, size, color, and effects, ensuring clear differentiation and contributing to a well-organized visual hierarchy. This comprehensive approach to text elements ensures an effective, legible, and visually appealing map design.

In addressing the challenge of effectively labeling multiple features in the map, a strategic approach was taken to balance numerous labels while maintaining legibility and communicative integrity. Several key label options and strategies were employed. Mexico City, as the capital, was assigned a unique symbol, ensuring it stands out prominently. Other cities share a common symbol for simplicity, while state capitals share a distinct symbology, clearly differentiating them. Distinct font types and styles were chosen for cities, rivers, and states to avoid confusion. Bold and clear fonts were selected for cities, ensuring they were easily distinguishable. Italicized fonts were used for rivers, providing a visual contrast, while states were labeled with regular fonts. Leveraging automatic labeling for cities and states helped streamline the process, avoiding manual placement complexities and allowing for efficient handling of numerous labels while maintaining readability. Prioritization was crucial to managing conflicts among labels. Mexico City, being a focal point, was labeled with the highest priority. State capitals emphasize population centers of importance. Rivers were labeled with a slightly lower priority but maintained visibility. Recognizing the challenge of labeling all features dynamically, a selective approach was taken. Weights and overlapping settings were adjusted using the Labelling toolbar to control label placement. City labels were allowed to overlap rivers but not other cities, ensuring a balanced visual hierarchy.