Two Maps: Uber's new map cartography
justinobeirne.com> 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.
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.
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)
Would love to know how it was tested.
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.
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.