Sign in or 
Location: Mashup Map
Discussion: Legend/Key: Colors, Opacity, and Width
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 7 posts
mooniker |
Legend/Key: Colors, Opacity, and Width
Jul 8 2008, 8:23 PM EDT
I'd like to start a discussion on the color key/legend. Right now, on the Arlington mapplet I'm still using the legend I started out with before this wiki/group project, and I've recently been tweaking it in light of some usability considerations, and gauging my user experience but I'd like to get feedback from non-me users. Here are my usability concerns: Do you find this valuable? |
|
mooniker |
1. Opacity vs Width
Jul 8 2008, 8:24 PM EDT
I don't think opacity is a good indicator of "major-ness" because it's too subtle. I think it's better to let overlapping routes do subtle visual prominence stuff with opacity rather. What I think works better for indicating major/minor-ness is line width. Minor routes can be 1~2 pixels, major can be 4~6 pixels or something like that.The only use I think for opacity is proposed trails or trails under construction, with dramatically reduced opacity so as not to be confused with real trails. Do you find this valuable? |
|
mooniker |
2. Blue
Jul 8 2008, 8:24 PM EDT
I don't think we should use blue because Google Maps uses blue for driving directions. And when I use these maps to find a bike route, what I do is layer the driving directions over the mapplet (to find bike route that resembles the driven route) and that can get confusing with all the blue.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
mooniker |
3. Green
Jul 8 2008, 8:25 PM EDT
I kinda think we should use green for the most bike friendly type of route in the spirit of the green movement, so that's either paved shared-use trails or marked bike lanes.
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
mooniker |
4. Current/Tentative Arlington Mapplet's Legend
Jul 8 2008, 8:26 PM EDT
With those concerns in mind, I've tweaked the Arlington mapplet's key as follows:* shared-use trail (paved) = RED (2~6 pixels width, depending on major-ness), e.g. W&OD * shared-use paths (unpaved) = BROWN, e.g. C&O * bike lanes = lime GREEN * official bike routes (usually signed) = dark TEAL (blue-green) * unofficial/suggested routes = CYAN * cautionary routes = YELLOW and/or ORANGE * special/mixed-surface = PURPLE (between red and blue), e.g. parkways closed to motor traffic on weekends This way, the blue side of the spectrum (green, teal, cyan) is semantically on street and the red/brown side is off street. Overlaid driving directions are less confusing, although sometimes they cover over bike routes. For example, if you load the Arlington mapplet and punch in driving directions for, say, a multi-library run, you can compare driving versus biking book-return routes: 1800 N Lexington St, Arlington, VA 22205 (Westover) 1015 N Quincy St, Arlington, VA 22201 (Central) 816 S Walter Reed Dr, Arlington, VA 22204 (Columbia Pike) Any thoughts or suggestions? Do you find this valuable? |
washcycle |
5. RE: Current/Tentative Arlington Mapplet's Legend
Jul 11 2008, 10:55 AM EDT
I agree on opacity and I like darker lines in general - and the use of less dense ones for FUNDED - not proposed - trails. In other words only add trails that the government is committed to building.I also like the width idea for majorness. The only issue with green is that on the map it doesn't show up well in parks and parks are where most trails are, but lime green is better. I think the Arlington map looks good. Do you find this valuable? |
|
mooniker |
6. RE: Near-Future Trails with Funds and Commitment
Jul 11 2008, 6:31 PM EDT
Yeah, that's a good distinction. We shouldn't bother mapping trails that may never exist.The only place where I drew in a trail that doesn't exist yet is the Four Mile Run connection under I-395, and I experimented with lowering the opacity to almost nothing and I reduced its width, too, because if you give it any substance at all, it really could be mistaken for an actual trail. Do you find this valuable? |
