Comparing the maps of our chosen place (somewhere we ourselves are familiar with)
In comparing the maps we drew in the workshop, I noticed key differences between mine and my partners. Whereas he had written the names of the places on top of the the visual representation, I had drawn a key and had numbered the buildings. I thought that whereas his would be useful where someone know exactly where they wanted to go, mine crammed a lot of detail into a smaller space, and woul be much more useful for the explorer. I managed to fit a lot more into a small space.
The usefulness of the map is related the the purpose. If someone was trying to get somewhere in particular, mine might be a bit frustrating to use, as everything isn't visually signposted as it was in my partners. You cannot see at a glance where everything is in relation to eachther, and when a user is trying to find where something is by working out where it is in relation to other things, in mine you'd keep having to refer back to the key.
The two maps also have very different purposes: mine was to show things that were of interest me; I didn't even bother putting in things that I never went to/had no interest in. The map that I created would be useful in representing me, and anyone who wanted some kind of insight into the way that I use my local area. However, it would be useless to say, a tourist, who wanted to pick for themselves things that were useful or iteresting!
Therefore function, intention and purpose can play a huge part in designing maps. You have to work out how the user would use your map, make it as easy to use as possible... (or would you?).
Perhaps there is something in making the map I finally make not easy to use. There is a certain element of 'discovery' when one is interacting with the real world, and when something is laid out too simply in a representation of the real world, you can lose this!! In addiion to this you loserhe acrile experiences of being in the real world. Even in the virtual world, there is a certain degree of seperation between the user and the interface through which the user is using the area.
The size of the map, and the materials I used to make it were very critical to my work! It was hard to show much detail with a marker on an A4 sheet whereas it would have been easier using say a pencil. However, it would be easier to read for someone with restricted vision, and for those who want to be able to see what they're doing at a glance.
Exploratory maps, for people who have no idea where they want to go, would most likely try to show as much detail in as small a space as possible. This would prevent the need for the user to carry around multiple maps, and the focus would be on functionality. There may be something in the map itself instructing the users interaction in the real world, and perhaps giving suggestions that the user could make use of for them to more effectively use their time.
Mapping different sized areas could be quite interesting. The larger the area, the longer it will take to build up detail. Initially, I associated the effectiveness of a 3D map with the level of detail contained within the respresentation, but this may not always be the case. It depends on what you want to portray. Also, carrying too much detail may in fact marr the point of the map as (ith onlie maps), it may take longer for themto load, be difficult to host, and the use. May actually get caught up in the small details, and miss the big picture. Perhaps it may be interesting to allow the user to control the detail level at diferent stages (or for the whole thing), and therefore controlling how they interact with the space and how.
