In Maps We Trust by James Cheshire.
From the post:
Of all the different types of data visualisation, maps* seem to have the best reputation. I think people are much less likely to trust a pie chart, for example, than a map. In a sense, this is amazing given that all maps are abstractions from reality. They can never tell the whole truth and are nearly all based on data with some degree of uncertainty that will vary over large geographic areas. An extreme interpretation of this view is that all maps are wrong- in which case we shouldn’t bother making them. A more moderate view (and the one I take) is that maps are never perfect so we need to create and use them responsibly – not making them at all would make us worse off. This responsibility criterion is incredibly important because of the high levels of belief people have in maps. You have to ask: What are the consequences of the map you have made? Now that maps are easier than ever to produce, they risk losing their lofty status as some of the most trusted data visualisations if those making them stop asking themselves this tough question.
…
*here I mean maps that display non-navigational data.
I posted a response over at Jame’s blog:
How do you identify “non-navigational data” in a map?
Your comment made me think of convention and some unconventional maps.
Any data rendered in relationship to other data can be used for “navigation.” Whether I intend to “navigate” as “boots on the ground” or between ideas.
Or to put it another way, who is to say what is or is not “non-navigational data?” The map maker or the reader/user of the map? Or what use is “better” for a map?
Great post!
Patrick
Curious, would you ask: “What are the consequences of the map you have made?”