�ݺ�ߣshows by User: kennethfield

�ݺ�ߣshows by User: kennethfield / http://www.slideshare.net/images/logo.gif �ݺ�ߣshows by User: kennethfield / Tue, 01 Jul 2014 10:37:33 GMT �ݺ�ߣShare feed for �ݺ�ߣshows by User: kennethfield 3D Cartography /slideshow/3d-cartography/36513956 fieldbcs201420min-140701103733-phpapp02
�ݺ�ߣs from my presentation at the British Cartographic Society Annual Symposium 2014. Not much use without the words and jokes but there's some pretty pictures.]]>
�ݺ�ߣs from my presentation at the British Cartographic Society Annual Symposium 2014. Not much use without the words and jokes but there's some pretty pictures.]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2014 10:37:33 GMT /slideshow/3d-cartography/36513956 kennethfield@slideshare.net(kennethfield) 3D Cartography kennethfield �ݺ�ߣs from my presentation at the British Cartographic Society Annual Symposium 2014. Not much use without the words and jokes but there's some pretty pictures. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/fieldbcs201420min-140701103733-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> �ݺ�ߣs from my presentation at the British Cartographic Society Annual Symposium 2014. Not much use without the words and jokes but there's some pretty pictures.

3D Cartography from Kenneth Field

]]> 1770 4 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/fieldbcs201420min-140701103733-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 Beck to the Future: End of the Line /slideshow/beck-to-the-future-end-of-the-line/27064556 beckslideshare-131010102003-phpapp02
Presentation given at NACIS 2013 by Kenneth Field and William Cartwright.]]>
Presentation given at NACIS 2013 by Kenneth Field and William Cartwright.]]> Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:20:03 GMT /slideshow/beck-to-the-future-end-of-the-line/27064556 kennethfield@slideshare.net(kennethfield) Beck to the Future: End of the Line kennethfield Presentation given at NACIS 2013 by Kenneth Field and William Cartwright. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/beckslideshare-131010102003-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> Presentation given at NACIS 2013 by Kenneth Field and William Cartwright.

Beck to the Future: End of the Line from Kenneth Field

]]> 712 3 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/beckslideshare-131010102003-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 SoC 2013 - Mapeat Emptor /slideshow/soc2013-mapeat/25817666 soc2013mapeat-130902085711-phpapp01
My talk from 2013 Society of Cartographers Summer School talking about some of the consequences of the modern mapping paradigm.]]>
My talk from 2013 Society of Cartographers Summer School talking about some of the consequences of the modern mapping paradigm.]]> Mon, 02 Sep 2013 08:57:11 GMT /slideshow/soc2013-mapeat/25817666 kennethfield@slideshare.net(kennethfield) SoC 2013 - Mapeat Emptor kennethfield My talk from 2013 Society of Cartographers Summer School talking about some of the consequences of the modern mapping paradigm. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/soc2013mapeat-130902085711-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> My talk from 2013 Society of Cartographers Summer School talking about some of the consequences of the modern mapping paradigm.

SoC 2013 - Mapeat Emptor from Kenneth Field

]]> 740 2 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/soc2013mapeat-130902085711-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 Zen and the art of cartography /slideshow/zen-and-the-art-of-cartography/25710755 icc2013zen-130829043546-phpapp01
Presentation by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013 In answer to the question ‘what do you do’? cartographers have gone from nervously explaining that yes, there are people who make maps to reluctantly admitting “yes, it’s like Google Maps”. Cartography is now cool…but it’s not cartographers that are making it cool. Instead, cartographers continue to assert ‘principles’ and ‘traditions’ as core to effective map-making but the message is getting lost. It’s time to re-focus and re-imagine. One of the things that has bothered us over the last few years is the role of design in map-making. We see very little of what we would call good design and very few people who either have the ability or enthusiasm to value design as a key component in the map-making process. We believe this is to the detriment of the quality and usefulness of maps and this is one of the reasons that the International Cartographic Association supported the creation of a new Commission on Map Design precisely to make design explicit. In this paper we want to think a little about how we might re-imagine design and the art of (or in) cartography in a way that might be more accessible to the growing world of map-makers. We want to think a little about the juxtaposition of the art and science of cartography and the white elephant in the room…technology. Cartography is about purposeful design, combining aesthetics and visuals with an understanding of data and how people behave when viewing a map. Instead of trying to assert the importance of art as a component of cartography to map-makers unwilling to listen, maybe there is value in seeing cartography as an art in itself. Using examples of ‘great maps’ from an original survey we assert that art is not a part of cartography that we try to marry with science and technology. Cartography is about creating something; art is in the doing and poor maps are not a function of failure to put art in cartography, they’re because the map is not treated as an artistic endeavour. The survey sought to collate a set of examplar maps that the cartographic profession could point to; that illustrated the zenith of cartographic excellence. The results provided a fascinating mix of historical and contemporary examples; some obvious and some less so but we explored the design in each and explained why they exhibit high standards of cartography. The survey also revealed that the idea that excellence in cartography can only be achieved by those with a formal training is a fallacy. The democratisation of map-making is possibly not as new as we might imagine since maps have always been made by non cartographers as the survey reveals.]]>
Presentation by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013 In answer to the question ‘what do you do’? cartographers have gone from nervously explaining that yes, there are people who make maps to reluctantly admitting “yes, it’s like Google Maps”. Cartography is now cool…but it’s not cartographers that are making it cool. Instead, cartographers continue to assert ‘principles’ and ‘traditions’ as core to effective map-making but the message is getting lost. It’s time to re-focus and re-imagine. One of the things that has bothered us over the last few years is the role of design in map-making. We see very little of what we would call good design and very few people who either have the ability or enthusiasm to value design as a key component in the map-making process. We believe this is to the detriment of the quality and usefulness of maps and this is one of the reasons that the International Cartographic Association supported the creation of a new Commission on Map Design precisely to make design explicit. In this paper we want to think a little about how we might re-imagine design and the art of (or in) cartography in a way that might be more accessible to the growing world of map-makers. We want to think a little about the juxtaposition of the art and science of cartography and the white elephant in the room…technology. Cartography is about purposeful design, combining aesthetics and visuals with an understanding of data and how people behave when viewing a map. Instead of trying to assert the importance of art as a component of cartography to map-makers unwilling to listen, maybe there is value in seeing cartography as an art in itself. Using examples of ‘great maps’ from an original survey we assert that art is not a part of cartography that we try to marry with science and technology. Cartography is about creating something; art is in the doing and poor maps are not a function of failure to put art in cartography, they’re because the map is not treated as an artistic endeavour. The survey sought to collate a set of examplar maps that the cartographic profession could point to; that illustrated the zenith of cartographic excellence. The results provided a fascinating mix of historical and contemporary examples; some obvious and some less so but we explored the design in each and explained why they exhibit high standards of cartography. The survey also revealed that the idea that excellence in cartography can only be achieved by those with a formal training is a fallacy. The democratisation of map-making is possibly not as new as we might imagine since maps have always been made by non cartographers as the survey reveals.]]> Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:35:46 GMT /slideshow/zen-and-the-art-of-cartography/25710755 kennethfield@slideshare.net(kennethfield) Zen and the art of cartography kennethfield Presentation by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013 In answer to the question ‘what do you do’? cartographers have gone from nervously explaining that yes, there are people who make maps to reluctantly admitting “yes, it’s like Google Maps”. Cartography is now cool…but it’s not cartographers that are making it cool. Instead, cartographers continue to assert ‘principles’ and ‘traditions’ as core to effective map-making but the message is getting lost. It’s time to re-focus and re-imagine. One of the things that has bothered us over the last few years is the role of design in map-making. We see very little of what we would call good design and very few people who either have the ability or enthusiasm to value design as a key component in the map-making process. We believe this is to the detriment of the quality and usefulness of maps and this is one of the reasons that the International Cartographic Association supported the creation of a new Commission on Map Design precisely to make design explicit. In this paper we want to think a little about how we might re-imagine design and the art of (or in) cartography in a way that might be more accessible to the growing world of map-makers. We want to think a little about the juxtaposition of the art and science of cartography and the white elephant in the room…technology. Cartography is about purposeful design, combining aesthetics and visuals with an understanding of data and how people behave when viewing a map. Instead of trying to assert the importance of art as a component of cartography to map-makers unwilling to listen, maybe there is value in seeing cartography as an art in itself. Using examples of ‘great maps’ from an original survey we assert that art is not a part of cartography that we try to marry with science and technology. Cartography is about creating something; art is in the doing and poor maps are not a function of failure to put art in cartography, they’re because the map is not treated as an artistic endeavour. The survey sought to collate a set of examplar maps that the cartographic profession could point to; that illustrated the zenith of cartographic excellence. The results provided a fascinating mix of historical and contemporary examples; some obvious and some less so but we explored the design in each and explained why they exhibit high standards of cartography. The survey also revealed that the idea that excellence in cartography can only be achieved by those with a formal training is a fallacy. The democratisation of map-making is possibly not as new as we might imagine since maps have always been made by non cartographers as the survey reveals. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/icc2013zen-130829043546-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> Presentation by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013 In answer to the question ‘what do you do’? cartographers have gone from nervously explaining that yes, there are people who make maps to reluctantly admitting “yes, it’s like Google Maps”. Cartography is now cool…but it’s not cartographers that are making it cool. Instead, cartographers continue to assert ‘principles’ and ‘traditions’ as core to effective map-making but the message is getting lost. It’s time to re-focus and re-imagine. One of the things that has bothered us over the last few years is the role of design in map-making. We see very little of what we would call good design and very few people who either have the ability or enthusiasm to value design as a key component in the map-making process. We believe this is to the detriment of the quality and usefulness of maps and this is one of the reasons that the International Cartographic Association supported the creation of a new Commission on Map Design precisely to make design explicit. In this paper we want to think a little about how we might re-imagine design and the art of (or in) cartography in a way that might be more accessible to the growing world of map-makers. We want to think a little about the juxtaposition of the art and science of cartography and the white elephant in the room…technology. Cartography is about purposeful design, combining aesthetics and visuals with an understanding of data and how people behave when viewing a map. Instead of trying to assert the importance of art as a component of cartography to map-makers unwilling to listen, maybe there is value in seeing cartography as an art in itself. Using examples of ‘great maps’ from an original survey we assert that art is not a part of cartography that we try to marry with science and technology. Cartography is about creating something; art is in the doing and poor maps are not a function of failure to put art in cartography, they’re because the map is not treated as an artistic endeavour. The survey sought to collate a set of examplar maps that the cartographic profession could point to; that illustrated the zenith of cartographic excellence. The results provided a fascinating mix of historical and contemporary examples; some obvious and some less so but we explored the design in each and explained why they exhibit high standards of cartography. The survey also revealed that the idea that excellence in cartography can only be achieved by those with a formal training is a fallacy. The democratisation of map-making is possibly not as new as we might imagine since maps have always been made by non cartographers as the survey reveals.

Zen and the art of cartography from Kenneth Field

]]> 668 5 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/icc2013zen-130829043546-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 Beck to the Future /slideshow/beck-to-the-future-25710597/25710597 icc2013beck-130829043110-phpapp02
Presentation given by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013 When one thinks of a map depicting London, generally the image that appears is of that of the map designed by Henry (Harry) Beck. It has become a design icon despite the fact that it eschews topography (other than the River Thames) and focuses on the simplified depiction of the topology of the Underground rail network. Beck’s map, designed in 1931, and first made available to London commuters in 1933, has become the image of the geography of London and, generally, the mental map that defines how London ‘works’. Station names have become synonymous with the above-ground landscape and the network is such that most of London’s landmarks can be readily located through the map. Navigating between them is a simple process and while the city above is a socio-economic and cultural soup, the simplicity of the map brings a sense of order, structure and sensibility. It is a perfect counterpoint to the chaos at street level. This paper asserts that Beck’s map is over-used in myriad ways beyond the reason for its invention. The effect of such abuse has been to dilute its own place in cartographic history. There have been many official iterations that have not always successfully married Beck’s design ideas with network changes; other metro maps have often tried to imitate but with mediocre success; and the map is perpetually used as a template for mimics and alternatives. The map has become a model for parody. ]]>
Presentation given by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013 When one thinks of a map depicting London, generally the image that appears is of that of the map designed by Henry (Harry) Beck. It has become a design icon despite the fact that it eschews topography (other than the River Thames) and focuses on the simplified depiction of the topology of the Underground rail network. Beck’s map, designed in 1931, and first made available to London commuters in 1933, has become the image of the geography of London and, generally, the mental map that defines how London ‘works’. Station names have become synonymous with the above-ground landscape and the network is such that most of London’s landmarks can be readily located through the map. Navigating between them is a simple process and while the city above is a socio-economic and cultural soup, the simplicity of the map brings a sense of order, structure and sensibility. It is a perfect counterpoint to the chaos at street level. This paper asserts that Beck’s map is over-used in myriad ways beyond the reason for its invention. The effect of such abuse has been to dilute its own place in cartographic history. There have been many official iterations that have not always successfully married Beck’s design ideas with network changes; other metro maps have often tried to imitate but with mediocre success; and the map is perpetually used as a template for mimics and alternatives. The map has become a model for parody. ]]> Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:31:10 GMT /slideshow/beck-to-the-future-25710597/25710597 kennethfield@slideshare.net(kennethfield) Beck to the Future kennethfield Presentation given by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013 When one thinks of a map depicting London, generally the image that appears is of that of the map designed by Henry (Harry) Beck. It has become a design icon despite the fact that it eschews topography (other than the River Thames) and focuses on the simplified depiction of the topology of the Underground rail network. Beck’s map, designed in 1931, and first made available to London commuters in 1933, has become the image of the geography of London and, generally, the mental map that defines how London ‘works’. Station names have become synonymous with the above-ground landscape and the network is such that most of London’s landmarks can be readily located through the map. Navigating between them is a simple process and while the city above is a socio-economic and cultural soup, the simplicity of the map brings a sense of order, structure and sensibility. It is a perfect counterpoint to the chaos at street level. This paper asserts that Beck’s map is over-used in myriad ways beyond the reason for its invention. The effect of such abuse has been to dilute its own place in cartographic history. There have been many official iterations that have not always successfully married Beck’s design ideas with network changes; other metro maps have often tried to imitate but with mediocre success; and the map is perpetually used as a template for mimics and alternatives. The map has become a model for parody. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/icc2013beck-130829043110-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> Presentation given by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013 When one thinks of a map depicting London, generally the image that appears is of that of the map designed by Henry (Harry) Beck. It has become a design icon despite the fact that it eschews topography (other than the River Thames) and focuses on the simplified depiction of the topology of the Underground rail network. Beck’s map, designed in 1931, and first made available to London commuters in 1933, has become the image of the geography of London and, generally, the mental map that defines how London ‘works’. Station names have become synonymous with the above-ground landscape and the network is such that most of London’s landmarks can be readily located through the map. Navigating between them is a simple process and while the city above is a socio-economic and cultural soup, the simplicity of the map brings a sense of order, structure and sensibility. It is a perfect counterpoint to the chaos at street level. This paper asserts that Beck’s map is over-used in myriad ways beyond the reason for its invention. The effect of such abuse has been to dilute its own place in cartographic history. There have been many official iterations that have not always successfully married Beck’s design ideas with network changes; other metro maps have often tried to imitate but with mediocre success; and the map is perpetually used as a template for mimics and alternatives. The map has become a model for parody.

Beck to the Future from Kenneth Field

]]> 1098 7 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/icc2013beck-130829043110-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation Black http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 Web design: print to web /slideshow/icc2013-print-toweb/25710456 icc2013printtoweb-130829042558-phpapp02
Presentation by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013. Much has been made about web maps being a new map-making medium even to the extent that they’re often referred to as a whole new breed of maps (e.g. intelligent web maps) or that they define a new paradigm in cartography. The democratization of map-making has certainly been pivotal in developing new ways of publishing maps and by new map-makers but cartography has always been a milieu defined by the varying dimensions of science, art and technology. The last of these has always been hugely defining and has gone a long way to determining how a map appears. Trends in ornate lettering were largely brought about by the skill of the copperplate engraver. Full colour map production was underpinned by developments in printing and digital map production technologies. Now, barriers to online map production have diminished; data has never been more easily gathered using mobile devices or acquired through online sources so making a map has never been easier in terms of their construction. This is of huge consequence to the art of cartography. Technological development has been so rapid due to the perceived need to create a framework that allows anyone to make a map. What this has resulted in is more maps and, consequently, more bad maps. This paper does not seek to simply shine a light on the widespread abuse of maps brought about by recent change but, rather, to focus on an assessment of the way in which web mapping is both redefining and challenging cartography. I use a case study approach based on the parallel print and web production of a map designed to tell the story of deaths in Grand Canyon. The Death in Grand Canyon map is the first of its kind to depict over 700 known deaths in the Grand Canyon. The purpose of the map was to catalogue the deaths spatially; to give them a locational context and to display the thematic information of the nature of the events of each death ranging from falls and drownings to snake bites, suicides and murders. Each death has a very individual story but collectively, they tell a bigger story of the danger that such a magnificent but dangerous environment poses to humans. The map was used as a vehicle to explicitly explore the differences between print and web as a publication medium and how the medium affects the design process. The print map was designed as a large format poster; the web map as a multiscale information product for viewing on screen and mobile devices. Each was treated as a separate product and designed within the constraints and opportunities afforded by the two different production technologies. This paper explores how design principles and the use of different cartographic methods were largely driven by the different technologies of production and what they meant for how the story was to be communicated by each.]]>
Presentation by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013. Much has been made about web maps being a new map-making medium even to the extent that they’re often referred to as a whole new breed of maps (e.g. intelligent web maps) or that they define a new paradigm in cartography. The democratization of map-making has certainly been pivotal in developing new ways of publishing maps and by new map-makers but cartography has always been a milieu defined by the varying dimensions of science, art and technology. The last of these has always been hugely defining and has gone a long way to determining how a map appears. Trends in ornate lettering were largely brought about by the skill of the copperplate engraver. Full colour map production was underpinned by developments in printing and digital map production technologies. Now, barriers to online map production have diminished; data has never been more easily gathered using mobile devices or acquired through online sources so making a map has never been easier in terms of their construction. This is of huge consequence to the art of cartography. Technological development has been so rapid due to the perceived need to create a framework that allows anyone to make a map. What this has resulted in is more maps and, consequently, more bad maps. This paper does not seek to simply shine a light on the widespread abuse of maps brought about by recent change but, rather, to focus on an assessment of the way in which web mapping is both redefining and challenging cartography. I use a case study approach based on the parallel print and web production of a map designed to tell the story of deaths in Grand Canyon. The Death in Grand Canyon map is the first of its kind to depict over 700 known deaths in the Grand Canyon. The purpose of the map was to catalogue the deaths spatially; to give them a locational context and to display the thematic information of the nature of the events of each death ranging from falls and drownings to snake bites, suicides and murders. Each death has a very individual story but collectively, they tell a bigger story of the danger that such a magnificent but dangerous environment poses to humans. The map was used as a vehicle to explicitly explore the differences between print and web as a publication medium and how the medium affects the design process. The print map was designed as a large format poster; the web map as a multiscale information product for viewing on screen and mobile devices. Each was treated as a separate product and designed within the constraints and opportunities afforded by the two different production technologies. This paper explores how design principles and the use of different cartographic methods were largely driven by the different technologies of production and what they meant for how the story was to be communicated by each.]]> Thu, 29 Aug 2013 04:25:58 GMT /slideshow/icc2013-print-toweb/25710456 kennethfield@slideshare.net(kennethfield) Web design: print to web kennethfield Presentation by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013. Much has been made about web maps being a new map-making medium even to the extent that they’re often referred to as a whole new breed of maps (e.g. intelligent web maps) or that they define a new paradigm in cartography. The democratization of map-making has certainly been pivotal in developing new ways of publishing maps and by new map-makers but cartography has always been a milieu defined by the varying dimensions of science, art and technology. The last of these has always been hugely defining and has gone a long way to determining how a map appears. Trends in ornate lettering were largely brought about by the skill of the copperplate engraver. Full colour map production was underpinned by developments in printing and digital map production technologies. Now, barriers to online map production have diminished; data has never been more easily gathered using mobile devices or acquired through online sources so making a map has never been easier in terms of their construction. This is of huge consequence to the art of cartography. Technological development has been so rapid due to the perceived need to create a framework that allows anyone to make a map. What this has resulted in is more maps and, consequently, more bad maps. This paper does not seek to simply shine a light on the widespread abuse of maps brought about by recent change but, rather, to focus on an assessment of the way in which web mapping is both redefining and challenging cartography. I use a case study approach based on the parallel print and web production of a map designed to tell the story of deaths in Grand Canyon. The Death in Grand Canyon map is the first of its kind to depict over 700 known deaths in the Grand Canyon. The purpose of the map was to catalogue the deaths spatially; to give them a locational context and to display the thematic information of the nature of the events of each death ranging from falls and drownings to snake bites, suicides and murders. Each death has a very individual story but collectively, they tell a bigger story of the danger that such a magnificent but dangerous environment poses to humans. The map was used as a vehicle to explicitly explore the differences between print and web as a publication medium and how the medium affects the design process. The print map was designed as a large format poster; the web map as a multiscale information product for viewing on screen and mobile devices. Each was treated as a separate product and designed within the constraints and opportunities afforded by the two different production technologies. This paper explores how design principles and the use of different cartographic methods were largely driven by the different technologies of production and what they meant for how the story was to be communicated by each. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/icc2013printtoweb-130829042558-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> Presentation by Kenneth Field at International Cartographic Conference, Dresden 2013. Much has been made about web maps being a new map-making medium even to the extent that they’re often referred to as a whole new breed of maps (e.g. intelligent web maps) or that they define a new paradigm in cartography. The democratization of map-making has certainly been pivotal in developing new ways of publishing maps and by new map-makers but cartography has always been a milieu defined by the varying dimensions of science, art and technology. The last of these has always been hugely defining and has gone a long way to determining how a map appears. Trends in ornate lettering were largely brought about by the skill of the copperplate engraver. Full colour map production was underpinned by developments in printing and digital map production technologies. Now, barriers to online map production have diminished; data has never been more easily gathered using mobile devices or acquired through online sources so making a map has never been easier in terms of their construction. This is of huge consequence to the art of cartography. Technological development has been so rapid due to the perceived need to create a framework that allows anyone to make a map. What this has resulted in is more maps and, consequently, more bad maps. This paper does not seek to simply shine a light on the widespread abuse of maps brought about by recent change but, rather, to focus on an assessment of the way in which web mapping is both redefining and challenging cartography. I use a case study approach based on the parallel print and web production of a map designed to tell the story of deaths in Grand Canyon. The Death in Grand Canyon map is the first of its kind to depict over 700 known deaths in the Grand Canyon. The purpose of the map was to catalogue the deaths spatially; to give them a locational context and to display the thematic information of the nature of the events of each death ranging from falls and drownings to snake bites, suicides and murders. Each death has a very individual story but collectively, they tell a bigger story of the danger that such a magnificent but dangerous environment poses to humans. The map was used as a vehicle to explicitly explore the differences between print and web as a publication medium and how the medium affects the design process. The print map was designed as a large format poster; the web map as a multiscale information product for viewing on screen and mobile devices. Each was treated as a separate product and designed within the constraints and opportunities afforded by the two different production technologies. This paper explores how design principles and the use of different cartographic methods were largely driven by the different technologies of production and what they meant for how the story was to be communicated by each.

Web design: print to web from Kenneth Field

]]> 900 5 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/icc2013printtoweb-130829042558-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 Zen and art of cartography /slideshow/zen-and-art-of-cartography/14195558 zenandartofcartography-120906172138-phpapp01
Presentation given to British Cartographic Society and GeoCart conferences, 2012 on art and cartography.]]>
Presentation given to British Cartographic Society and GeoCart conferences, 2012 on art and cartography.]]> Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:21:38 GMT /slideshow/zen-and-art-of-cartography/14195558 kennethfield@slideshare.net(kennethfield) Zen and art of cartography kennethfield Presentation given to British Cartographic Society and GeoCart conferences, 2012 on art and cartography. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/zenandartofcartography-120906172138-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds" /> Presentation given to British Cartographic Society and GeoCart conferences, 2012 on art and cartography.

Zen and art of cartography from Kenneth Field

]]> 3089 5 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/zenandartofcartography-120906172138-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post

http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted

0 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/profile-photo-kennethfield-48x48.jpg?cb=1523463562 Cartonerd cartonerd.blogspot.com https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/fieldbcs201420min-140701103733-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=320&height=320&fit=bounds slideshow/3d-cartography/36513956 3D Cartography https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/beckslideshare-131010102003-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=320&height=320&fit=bounds slideshow/beck-to-the-future-end-of-the-line/27064556 Beck to the Future: En... https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/soc2013mapeat-130902085711-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=320&height=320&fit=bounds slideshow/soc2013-mapeat/25817666 SoC 2013 - Mapeat Emptor