When talking about the ethics and rhetoric of data displays
in class, I brought up the example of geographic information system (GIS) and
their technique of interpolation. This was the only example I could think when
a 3-D bar graph can be appropriate, but it made me think more about maps are
significantly complex data displays.
In her article Ethics
and Visual Rhetorics: Seeing’s Not Believing Anymore, Nancy Allen states,
“Visual graphics convey information both through the data included and through
the general visual impression created” (Allen 93).
In a simple map, you can think of the “data included” as attributes
like names of cities and road. The “general visual impression created” would
then be the colors, borders (of regions and of the map itself), and the
projection. I find the second part of that equation to be more ethically
significant than the first.
Any reputable map should cite the projection used. However, there are
hundreds of projections. The general user may consider two maps of identical
data and different projections, identical; but they are very different.
In this case the “general visual impression created” changes
everything. The most common problem has to do with border boundaries (e.g.,
neighboring regions using different map projections). Regardless of projection,
borderlines themselves also impact visual–the thickness of a line could be
miles wide.
A map is just general visual impression.
Add a comment