recentpopularlog in

robertogreco : infospace   2

The Little Mystical - Some Obvious Things About Drawing Maps
"As single-user tools (since we’re talking about personal construction of knowledge), I wonder at the gap between the activity beneath the surface and what a visitor sees – a canonical-looking map or article.

Criticism of Wikipedia’s factual accuracy is often (1) It can change anytime! and (2) Any random person can change it! – which, well, are also the reasons why it works. But the disconnect happens because a unstable work, that’s under constant negotiation, looks stable. How many people look at Wikipedia history frequently? How many people understand – explicitly understand – that this is knowledge construction?

There are some obvious ideas that fall out of making that level of change clearer to people – you could highlight areas that have changed since you last looked at it, you could fade out areas under heavy negotiation and only show the stable parts by default.

Or with personal map-making / map-reading, when you have these layers of structured data, you can do a little paint-by-layers – say you’re drawing a map of your neighborhood, you drag out lines following the path of the main streets you walk on, and Sim-City-style, they get drawn-in using live data. You get both the explicitness of someone’s “drawing out” their map’s contours and the benefit of the latest satellite mapping data."

[Full conversation here: http://storify.com/rogre/legible-maps-of-places-and-infospaces ]
allentan  2013  maps  mapping  wikipedia  osm  openstreetmap  charlieloyd  comments  history  information  knowledge  undertsanding  change  accuracy  time  memory  legibility  infospace  infospaces 
august 2013 by robertogreco

Copy this bookmark:





to read