
Two Maps: Uber's new map cartography - antoniomedrano
http://www.justinobeirne.com/essay/two-maps
======
a3n
> which map's text is easier to read?

For the first example, they're both difficult for me to read. Even the "good"
one on the left doesn't have enough contrast for me. Also, because I'm old,
the type is too small, and being as small as it is the strokes seem to "bloom"
(a term of art that I just made up): there's too much stroke and not enough
space for me to quickly figure out what letter is being used.

A mobile screen doesn't have enough space for "art" in something as dense as a
map. Make it look good, yes please, but if I can't read it I won't.

I think what I'd like on a mobile device is a control that picks out lines and
not lines, and maximizes the difference, and does something a little more
complicated to make text more legible. "Reader View" in Firefox is one of my
favorite features, but it only changes text, not images. Maybe a combination
of SVG images and really fast processors would make this possible; I doubt CV
is going to do this very well any time soon.

"Oh, but he's old and we can dismiss him." Yes to the first, and from my own
observations yes to the second. And I suppose by the time these conditions
afflict today's designers, instead of cradling your devices with your heads
down you'll be hiding behind VR glasses and size won't matter.

------
antoniomedrano
It would be interesting to know if Uber did quantitative testing on their new
design. The author's gut feeling or personal aesthetic may have very little to
do with such a map's real world effectiveness and performance. The author also
emphasizes label contrast. It seems that the Uber map has more network
contrast, which might be a use case they value.

~~~
dav3t
It's not really a gut feeling though. The uber map _does_ have worse
contrast.. it could be proven scientifically. And the new app's 2.5-star
rating suggests it hasn't been effective in the real
world.([https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/uber/id368677368](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/uber/id368677368))

Would love to know how it was tested.

~~~
glennon
The new map appears to be emphasizing the road network and user-generated
overlays; i.e., pick up, drop off, and (soon) people locations. There is less
label contrast, and while that could be proven scientifically, it does not
make the map "better" or "worse". Its appropriateness depends on how use case
success is measured. Contrasting the 2.5 star app rating, tweets about the new
UI show 20 to 1 approval. I agree with you, though -- I would love to know how
the new map was tested.

~~~
dav3t
We don't know which use case is being measured, but let's not kid ourselves..
the dominant use case is confirming one's pickup location on the map. Given
the dominant use case, the map's reduced legibility = a worse map. (Map labels
are used to confirm surroundings, and network isn't as important because
riders aren't navigating.)

Also, comparing tweets to app store ratings isn't apples to apples. Everyone
using uber's app has an app store account and can leave ratings. But not
everyone who uses the app has a twitter account. (And ~40-50% of twitter
accounts don't tweet.) So twitter results are skewed.

App store rating is the more meaningful metric.

