Designing For Multiple Outputs


Published on

Presentation from the Better Mapping seminars run by the British Cartographic Society. Aimed at highlighting issues involved in cartographic production for multiple formats.

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • This presentation will examine how design considerations differ for cross media outputs and investigate why some media require special consideration. It will also cover some of the common issues encountered and show how we have resolved them.
  • The requirements for effective representation and legible symbology vary across the broad range of media now used by increasing numbers of map users and mobile technology suppliers.
  • Camberwell Local Area Map for Southwark Council. The challenge – to create a universal identity that would work on print and interactive media, for different audience sectors with differing requirements. This presented an opportunity to develop a methodology that would satisfy the brief and could carry forward into our other work. This multi-channel approach is increasingly required by our clients to improve access to and presentation of information in simple, accessible formats by their ever growing audiences (mainly the general public via local authorities or government bodies) and their aim to use new technology in innovative ways to deliver best value – and make an impact.
  • 1 – means that a grid or zoom facility is required and will impact on the size of fonts and symbols effectiveness 2 – this should be remembered when creating complex information for display 3 – ie: some RGB colours can be dull when converted to CMYK 4 – outside/inside. Well light/dull environment
  • 1 – lowest common denominator 2 – where a fancier detailed design can be used on print 3 – our client was looking for a consistent approach so this is a consideration
  • 1 – Rome. By using the new software applications new issues arise resulting from poor data capture.
  • 3 – reversed colours = black/white. Dark/ light. Careful of tones
  • 1 – evolving technology – good to test with yourself before submitting Source: September 2009 (May 09) 2 – pre-press proof from printer 3 – good if you have budget/time
  • 1 – evolving technology – good to test with yourself before submitting Source: September 2009 (May 09) 2 – pre-press proof from printer 3 – good if you have budget/time
  • Important to check or know the outcome formats from the beginning
  • Designing For Multiple Outputs

    1. 1. Designing for Multiple Outputs The Obstacles and Processes
    2. 2. The problem <ul><li>What do we mean by multiple outputs? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Posters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Paper handy sized leaflets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On screen journey planners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sat Nav </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>GIS databases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Websites </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>on mac and pc screens </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>on mobile technology </li></ul></ul></ul>
    3. 3. The challenges <ul><li>Why have things changed? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evolving technology = new display techniques </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>iPhone, Blackberry, Windows phone, Palm Pre, etc </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New ways of collecting and communicating data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>GPS, Social networking + collaboration, Crowdsourcing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clients searching for cost effective solutions to reach a wide public audience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Economic situation </li></ul></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Why solve it? <ul><li>Why consider designing for all? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Convenience </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less duplication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less chance for error </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Costs </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. The obstacles <ul><li>General obstacles </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Different outputs can create the following visual constraints: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Legible display area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Display resolution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Colour mode </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Viewing conditions </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. The obstacles <ul><li>Other obstacles… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Previous software incompatibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>GIS data with extensive attributes make heavy file sizes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bandwidth limitations/network availability </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. The process <ul><li>The process should include… </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Design led decisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hardware/Output testing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User testing </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. The design processes <ul><li>Point representation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Symbology should be designed for the hardest to read so that all exports are legible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Clear bold symbols are required for the web </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Symbols may be automatically replaced on each export… </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… however that does not aid in consistency </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. The design processes <ul><li>Area and Line representation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Too many different styles can be difficult to interpret especially when the key is less accessible on web versions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pop up names can help to explain key/figural elements where required </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. The design processes <ul><li>Text representation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Choice of font is important </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pixelation can lead to illegible text </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bold font and reversed colours work well </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Light and Italics can be troublesome </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. The hardware processes <ul><li>Testing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Different browsers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Firefox [46.6%] [47.7%] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>IE [39.6%] [41%] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>7[15.3%] [21.3%] </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>8 [12.2%] [5.2%] </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>6 [12.1%] [14.5%] </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Chrome [7.1%] [5.5%] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Safari [3.6%] [3.0%] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Opera [2.2%] [2.2%] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Other [0.9%] [0.6%] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Different printers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Laser </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Inkjet </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pre-press proof </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>etc </li></ul></ul></ul>
    12. 12. The testing process <ul><li>User Groups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Internal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Colleagues </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>of different ages and experience </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Client </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>External </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Focus groups </li></ul></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Case Study <ul><li>Camberwell Local Area Map </li></ul><ul><li>interactive website http:// </li></ul><ul><li>A3 folded leaflet (10pp per side) </li></ul>
    14. 14. Case Study <ul><li>Tees Valley Metro Regeneration </li></ul><ul><li>Powerpoint presentation </li></ul><ul><li>A4 report </li></ul>
    15. 15. Case Study Outcomes <ul><li>Points we carried forward: </li></ul><ul><li>Re-use of varied scales </li></ul><ul><li>Attribution of the symbols can be carried through to the interactive version </li></ul><ul><li>Knowing the output requirements at the start can save a lot of time and expense </li></ul>
    16. 16. Summary <ul><li>Strategies should be in place </li></ul><ul><ul><li>These will help when creating multiple output mapping to create effective and cost-efficient outputs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Points to consider: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Think about the most appropriate software you should use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Design ideology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User ! </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Thank you <ul><li>Any questions? </li></ul><ul><li>Clare Neal </li></ul><ul><li>Senior Consultant </li></ul>