designing for multiple outputs

2009

Better Mapping

Designing for Multiple Outputs

The Obstacles and Processes

BETTER MAPPING 2008Better Mapping 2009Clare Neal, Steer Davies Gleave

The problem

What do we mean by multiple outputs?

• Posters

• Paper handy sized leaflets

• On screen journey planners

• Sat Nav

• GIS databases • Websites

• on mac and pc screens• on mobile technology


The challenges

Why have things changed?

• Evolving technology = new display techniques

• iPhone, Blackberry, Windows phone, Palm Pre, etc

• New ways of collecting and communicating data

• GPS, Social networking + collaboration, Crowdsourcing

• Clients searching for cost effective solutions to reach a wide public audience

• Economic situation


Why solve it?

Why consider designing for all?

• Convenience

• Less duplication

• Less chance for error

• Time

• Costs


The obstacles

General obstacles

Different outputs can create the following visual constraints:

• Legible display area

• Display resolution

• Colour mode

• Viewing conditions


The obstacles

Other obstacles…

• Previous software incompatibility

• GIS data with extensive attributes make heavy file sizes

• Bandwidth limitations/network availability


The process

The process should include…

• Design led decisions

• Hardware/Output testing

• User testing


The design processes

Point representation

• Symbology should be designed for the hardest to read so that all exports are legible

• Clear bold symbols are required for the web

• Symbols may be automatically replaced on each export…

• … however that does not aid in consistency



Area and Line representation

• Too many different styles can be difficult to interpret especially when the key is less accessible on web versions

• Pop up names can help to explain key/figural elements where required



Text representation

• Choice of font is important

• Pixelation can lead to illegible text

• Bold font and reversed colours work well

• Light and Italics can be troublesome


The hardware processes

Testing

Different browsers

• Firefox [46.6%] [47.7%]

• IE [39.6%] [41%]

• 7[15.3%] [21.3%]

• 8 [12.2%] [5.2%]

• 6 [12.1%] [14.5%]

• Chrome [7.1%] [5.5%]

• Safari [3.6%] [3.0%]

• Opera [2.2%] [2.2%]

• Other [0.9%] [0.6%]

Different printers

• Laser• Inkjet• Pre-press proof• etc


The testing process

User Groups

Internal

• Colleagues • of different ages and experience

• Client

External

• Focus groups


Case Study

Camberwell Local Area Map

• interactive websitehttp://www.camberwellrenewal.org.uk/camb_map

• A3 folded leaflet (10pp per side)


Case Study

Tees Valley Metro Regeneration

• Powerpoint presentation

• A4 report


Case Study Outcomes

Points we carried forward:

• Re-use of varied scales

• Attribution of the symbols can be carried through to the interactive version

• Knowing the output requirements at the start can save a lot of time and expense


Summary

Strategies should be in place• These will help when creating multiple output

mapping to create effective and cost-efficient outputs

Points to consider:• Think about the most appropriate software you

should use

• Design ideology

• User !


Thank you

Any questions?

Clare Neal

Senior Consultant

designing for multiple outputs

Business