Semiotic evaluation of the systems of signs in the Lithuanian scholastic geographical atlases.
Maps as a means of conveying information have been used for a few thousand years. Though the first maps hardly resembled the modern cartographic production their purpose was the same--to convey different kinds of knowledge. Thus we can state that maps have especially old communicative traditions; they are even older than script. Maps are especially important in modern life. Symbols of cartographic material encode huge amounts of different information which are indispensible for modern people. Different cartographic production is designed for fulfilment of different tasks and is used by people of different age and education. Thus decoding, perception and assimilation of cartographic images require knowledge of cartographic language which should be in due course taught at school. The knowledge of cartographic language depends on the quality of cartographic production used by schools. It is of crucial importance that the information is conveyed in easily perceptible and memorisable language of cartographic signs.
It should be noted that the Lithuanian scholastic geographical cartographic production is a sore point which actually is neglected. In this country, there are very few scientific research works devoted to analysis of the quality of released cartographic production: Dumbliauskiene 2000, (the work contains the evaluation of school cartography production according to publishing groups, thematic sub-groups and character of usage and includes a summary account of results of qualimetric analysis), Rociute (2009), Dumbliauskiene, Rociute (2009), Rociute, Dumbliauskiene (2009, 2011) (these articles report the results of semiotic evaluation of the systems of cartographic symbols used in higher forms (8-12) of Lithuanian secondary school and analysis (survey using questionnaires) of their perception), Bevainis (2009, 2011a, 2011b) (these articles contains the analysis and evaluation of cartographical images of educational maps and report the problems of graphic information loads). Therefore, the main objective of the present study is to find out the specific features of the systems of cartographic signs developed for Lithuanian scholastic geographical atlases. Systems of cartographic signs used by the Lithuanian publishing houses in scholastic geographical atlases (designed for higher forms) were chosen as the study object.
In order to make cartographic images readable, easily perceptible and easily assimilated, the compilation of maps should be based on certain rules and principles. The requirements for school maps depend on the age of target users. It is important that cartographic symbols are simple and easily memorisable. The maps designed for junior forms should use cartographic signs in their form and colour resembling the objects they represent (signs images and typical colours). In some cases it is desirable that cartographic signs are of identical colour and shape (stylized symbols of identical colour imitating the represented object). Without reference to the age of students, cartographic signs in map legends should be correctly semantically differentiated. It is especially recommended to name the groups of cartographic signs in maps targeted at younger students (e.g. mineral resources, settlements, power plants, etc.). The taxonomic differentiation and transitive expression also should be correct. The well-chosen cartographic background also is important as it helps to orientate in the map. In order to attract pupils' attention, the cartographic material (especially the one designed for younger pupils) should be graphically original. Taking into consideration the age of users, the graphic and information loads must be reasonable. Both overload (encumbering the readability of cartographic production, decoding of the information, perception and memorising) and underload (in this case mps are less informative) should be avoided.
The used method is not new. I was applied in 2009 only for investigation of perception of cartographic signs in economic maps from the Lithuanian scholastic geographical atlases (Rociute 2009; Dumbliauskiene, Rociute 2009; Rociute, Dumbliauskiene 2009). For this reason, the main principles of the present research are briefly overviewed emphasising only the attributes of the evaluated indices (Tables 1 and 2).
As was mentioned, the method for semiotic evaluation of cartographic signs was developed by partly transforming the already existing method for evaluation of communicative quality of thematic maps (Dumbliauskiene 2000) and taking into consideration the psychological principles of perception (Kaffemanas 1997, 2001, 2002; Vaitkevicius 2002; MacEachren 2004; Stanikunas et al. 2004; Gurciniene, Soliunas 2005; Wiegand 2006; Gurciniene 2007; Martisius 2008).
The systems of cartographic signs used in the Lithuanian scholastic geographical atlases were analysed in three semiotic aspects. For each of them the evaluation indices were distinguished which are most important for correctness of signs and for their comprehension, assimilation and memorising.
1. The semantic analysis focuses on the relations between signifiers (signs) and denotations (objects they stand for). The associative capacity of the shape and colour of signs were evaluated. It is important that the signs used in maps preserve the typical attributes of denoted objects, phenomena and processes in terms of shape and colour (Dumbliauskiene 2002; Bertin 1981). The associative capacity of shape was analysed based on the following features: imitating or stylised characters (they also are called icons; they are small pictures (drawings or photographs), e.g. [cotton]--cotton, [cattle]--cattle), symbolic characters (they denominate the objects, phenomena or processes according to their typical attribute, e.g. [chemical industry]--chemical industry, [theatre]--theatre), and abstract conventional signs (signs which signify objects, phenomena or processes by agreement within a certain system of symbols, e.g. [nickle ore]--nickel ore, [ironstone]--ironstone). Analysing the associative capacity of colour, identical (e.g. [citruses]--citruses, [grapes]--grapes), symbolic (e.g. [automotive industry] --automotive industry) and indifferent (e.g. [grapes]--grapes) colours were distinguished.
2. The syntactic analysis is focused on the interrelations between signs. This aspect helps to seek correctness of signs taking into consideration their intrinsic links (which reflect the bonds between the real denoted objects). The information conveyed by maps compiled with respect to this aspect is more easily perceived by readers. The study also includes the evaluation of semantic (related with cartographic signs and their grouping according to certain attributes) and taxonomic differentiations (showing hierarchical bonds of cartographic signs existing in reality) and transitive expression (it shows the correctness of quantitative, qualitative and proportional scales used in a map; transitive expression manifests through variations of the size, colour and colour intensity of cartographic signs as well as intensity of shading) (Table 1).
The relation (communication and perception) of the users with the system of cartographic signs is analysed in pragmatic aspect. Attention is focused on the whole of cartographic signs, general cartographic image and its comprehension. The following evaluation indices are distinguished: graphic (characterized by the density of cartographic signs and letterings) and informative (it depends not only on the graphic load but also on characteristics of cartographic signs, gradations, links between signs and textual information, links of the elements of thematic contents with the cartographic basis, etc.) loads (Berliant 1986, 2003). It must be born in mind that the perception ability of individual readers differs depending on the age, education, knowledge of the field and even gender. The mentioned loads are evaluated visually, optimality of cartographic basis (it facilitates spatial orientation, perception and assimilation of the conveyed information; it should be pointed out that all types of maps should depict hydrographic and settlement networks; also they should represent cartographic grid and administrative distribution. The nature maps often depict relief and forests; the maps of social themes depict motor road and railway networks. The composition and number of the elements of cartographic basis are predetermined by the theme of the map, its scale and destination), graphic originality (unusual map elements, expressive forms, bright well matched colours, nonstandard design, original supplementary material (photographs, caricatures, etc.). All these features attract users' attention, raise interest, strengthen the impression, increase readability of the map and contribute to easy perception and memorising of the conveyed information), standardisation level (standardisation of cartographic signs implies regulation of the shapes and size of signs, colours and their intensity, orientation of signs, and texture. These regulations should be obeyed when compiling maps (Dumbliauskiene 2004); standardisation increases the readability of cartographic production, perception and assimilation of information), and readability (it depends on the above discussed indices) (Table 2).
2. Results of semiotic analysis
The number of the analysed cartographic signs is unequally distributed in atlases. The greatest numbers of signs (some of them repeat themselves) in are used in the "World atlas" published by "Alma Littera" scholastic atlas "The Earth" published by "Briedis" (Table 3).
Grouping of all cartographic signs into point, line (signs lines, signs vectors) and areal patterns (Fig. 1) showed that the Lithuanian scholastic geographical atlases are predominated by areal signs (area patterns) which account for almost 49% of the total of used cartographic signs. This is predetermined by a rather large number of small-scale maps in which the information is conveyed using qualitative or quantitative background and isoline (using colours for the interlayers) methods. These methods are used e.g. in maps depicting the quality of life index, birth rate, number of sunny days per year, amount of precipitation, etc. Also there are rather many medium-scale maps predominated by territorial distribution of objects, phenomena and processes where area patterns are used: e.g. agricultural maps depicting the distribution areas of vegetables, fruits, domestic animals. The cartogram method also is rather popular for spatial representation of agro cultures (for example the area of wheat, in ha, per 100 ha of cultivated soil) or population per unit territory (e.g. 1 sq km), etc.
Point signs are not less important in the analysed atlases (Fig. 1) where they account for about 39% of the total. This group of signs is especially often used in economic maps. This is so because the signified objects mainly are concentrated in points. The most widespread point objects are: mineral deposits, their treatment plants and other industrial centres, power plants, sea ports, air fields, etc.
The linear objects are least frequently signified in scholastic atlases. The line signs only account for 14% of the total (signs lines, signs vectors) (Fig. 1). These cartographic signs are used for representing the boundaries of different areas and spread directions of some phenomena and objects. For example, lines of different colour, thickness and texture are used to signify rivers, climate belts, boundaries of the tectonic plates, tectonic fault zones, navigation channels, railways, networks of motor roads, boundaries of oceans, etc. Signs vectors are used even more rarely. They are used for representation of expedition itineraries and directions of navigation (at the time of the great geographic discoveries), sea currents, tectonic plate movement, drifting of icebergs, and various natural disasters.
The semantic analysis of the Lithuanian scholastic geographical atlases showed that in most cases the resemblance of the shape of signifiers with the represented objects is conveyed using the symbolic signs, e.g.: [cruid oil]--crude oil, [chemical industry]--chemical industry, [castles]--castles, etc. (Fig. 2). Signs of this type account for more than 83% of the total of cartographic signs used in these maps. Abstract signs (e.g. [metal processing]--metal processing, [tee trees]--tee trees, [earth quakes]--earth quakes) account for 12.9%. The rarest in the scholastic atlases are imitating! stylised cartographic signs which are easily understandable and memorisable, e.g.: [grapes]--grapes, [cotton]--cotton, [pigs]--pigs, [cattle]--cattle). They only account for 3,6% of the total of cartographic signs used in the studied atlases.
Association capacity of colours (resemblance of the cartographic colours to the colours of real objects, phenomena or processes), facilitating recognition of represented objects, is another index of key importance in cartography. Yet it is rather difficult to choose colours identical to the represented object, phenomenon or process.
It was determined that cartographic signs of symbolic colours (e.g. ) (Fig. 3) were most frequently used in the studied atlases. They account for slightly more than a half of the total. Cartographic signs of indifferent colour (e.g. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]) also occurred rather frequently and accounted for 47% of the total. The cartographic signs with identical colours (e.g. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]) are fewest in the mps of geographical atlases. They account for 2.5%.
Syntactic analysis of Lithuanian scholastic geographical atlases showed that in the legends of maps the cartographic signs usually are correctly semantically differentiated (Fig. 4). In more than a half of the analysed maps (54.1%), cartographic signs are correctly semantically grouped though in many cases these groups are not titled. In simple maps--one or a few isolated objects, phenomena or processes are depicted --the semantic differentiation is not expressed (and it is not necessary). Such maps account for more than one third of the analysed maps. Only in the legends of 7.3% of analysed maps cartographic signs are partly correctly semantically grouped.
Taxonomic (hierarchic) signs (Fig. 5) representing the real relationships between objects, phenomena and processes are very rare in the analysed scholastic maps. In almost 83% of analysed maps, taxonomic differentiation is not expressed. The correct taxonomic differentiation was determined only in 16.6% of analysed maps. Only in 0.5% of maps the hierarchic relations are represented partly correctly.
It was observed (Fig. 6) that in more than a half of analysed maps (59%) the transitive expression is correct. In almost V of maps the transitive expression is partly correct and in slightly more than 16% of maps it is absent.
Pragmatic analysis showed that the graphic load of atlases published by different publishing-houses varies; the distribution of cartographic signs is uneven (Fig. 7). In some maps signs are concentrated in certain areas whereas other areas are almost empty. The general load of such maps can be evaluated (visually) as acceptable when it does not encumber readability. The load is not acceptable when maps abound in concentrations of signs and the number of signs within them is very high what makes it difficult to link them with the letterings.
Analysis revealed that the load (by visual evaluation) of more than a half of all analysed scholastic geographical atlases is acceptable (Fig. 7). Yet even about 40% of analysed maps are graphically underloaded. Maps overloaded with graphic elements are especially rare (1.5% of the total).
The research also showed that the Lithuanian scholastic geographical atlases are not overloaded with information (Fig. 8). In most of the analysed maps (82.1%), the information load is optimal. Maps with high information load were not found. Maps with low information load account for about 18%.
Cartographic basis, i.e. mathematic basis and geographical elements, is of key importance for perception.
Evaluation of cartographic basis showed (Fig. 9) that even in 46% of analysed maps cartographic basis was not optimal, in 1/3 of maps it was optimal and in almost 23% it was medium optimal.
Graphic originality is another very important index in scholastic cartographic production yet neglected by map compilers (Fig. 10). More than a half of the analysed maps (57.8%) showed no graphic originality. Moderate graphic originality was characteristic of more than 1/4 of analysed maps. Original graphic representation techniques (pronounced graphic originality) was observed in 15.3% of analysed scholastic geographical maps.
Analysis of the systems of cartographic signs revealed that systems of signs used in some thematic maps were at least partly developed sticking to certain standards, e.g. soil, geological, and physical (relief) maps. These maps together with synoptic, nature zones and geomorphological maps (where systems of signs are not officially standardised but based on certain traditions) can be attributed to the group of partly standardised maps.
The systems of cartographic signs in the majority of the maps of scholastic geographical atlases are not standardised. Such maps account for 64.2% of the total. Partly standardised systems of signs are used in more than 1/3 of all maps (Fig. 11).
The above discussed indices of pragmatic aspects play the key role in the process of communication, i.e. they are responsible for readability of cartographic production. Readability should be the main objective pursued by map compilers. Yet the task is difficult.
The readability of more than a half (58%) of analysed maps (Fig. 12) is good. Maps of encumbered readability account for slightly less than 40% of maps. The readability of 2.5% of analysed maps is bad.
Semiotic evaluation of the systems of cartographic signs used in the Lithuanian scholastic geographical maps leads to the conclusions given below.
The present semiotic analysis confirmed the results of semiotic evaluation of economic maps designed for higher forms carried out in 2009. The majority of published maps are schematic, representing one or a few simple objects, phenomena or processes. For this reason, the hierarchic relations between cartographic signs are rarely represented in the legends. The transitive expression is rarely depicted, the maps are not overloaded with information, and cartographic production with optimal information load is dominant. It should be pointed out that often the information load does not increase even in the maps designed for higher forms. The cartographic basis in almost a half of the analysed maps is not optimal what encumbers the readability of cartographic image.
The relatively small Lithuanian market abounds in scholastic geographical atlases using a huge number of not standardised cartographic signs. Sometimes even the atlases issued by one publishing house use different cartografphic signs for representation of the same objects, phenomena or processes bringing confusion into the process of perception and assimilation of cartographic information. It is necessary to standardise on a national level the systems of cartographic signs for groups of maps included in scholastic geographical atlases.
Pupils are an especially specific group of users of cartographic production. To attract their attention it is necessary to convey the cartographic information using interesting cartographic methods, original shapes of cartographic signs, well matched harmonious colours, and original styles and shades. These things are lacking in the available scholastic cartographic production. Compilers of cartographic production should devote more time not only to collection of information but also to its interesting and original representation.
Map compilers put great efforts to assimilation and use of modern technologies but forget to take count of the specific features of perception by pupils. They also sometimes ignore rules of semiotics without which creation of production of high communicative quality is impossible.
Received 06 June 2013; accepted 09 December 2013
Berliant, A. M. 2003. Kartovedenie. Moskva: Aspekt Press.
Berliant. A. M. 1986. Obraz prostranstva: karta i informatsiia. Moskva: Mysl.
Bertin, J. 1981. Graphics and graphic information-processing. New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110854688
Bevainis, L. 2009. The problems of optimization of graphic information loads of training for geography teachers, in Proceedings of IGU Commission on Geographical Education, Tsukuba, Vol. 57: 177-182.
Bevainis, L. 2011a. Analoginiu ir skaitmeniniu edukaciniu iemelapiu kartografinio vaizdo analize ir vertinimas (grafines ir informacines apkrovos pagrindu) [The analysis and evaluation of cartographical images of educational digital and paper maps (On the basis of graphic information load)]. Daktaro disertacija [Doctoral dissertation]. Vilnius: VU.
Bevainis, L. 2011b. The problems to determine correct graphic information loads of training maps for geography teaching, Pedagogika 101: 69-77.
Dumbliauskiene, M. 2000. Teminiu iemelapiu kvalimetrine analize (Lietuvos Respublikos leidiniu komunikacines kokybes pavyzdiiu) [Qualimetric analysis of thematic maps (case study of communicative quality of publications in the Republic of Lithuania)]. Daktaro disertacija [Doctoral dissertation]. Vilnius: VU.
Dumbliauskiene, M. 2004. Kartografiniu zenklu teminiuose zemelapiuose standartizacijos problema [Problem of standardisation of cartographic signs in thematic maps], Geografija [Geography] 40(1): 48-53.
Dumbliauskiene, M. 2002. Kartografines komunikacijos pagrindai [Fundamentals of cartographic communication]. Vilnius: VU.
Dumbliauskiene, M.; Rociute, I. 2009. Zenklu sistemos mokykliniu geografijos atlasu ukio zemelapiuose semiotiniu aspektu [Semiotic aspect of the systems of signs in the economic maps of scholastic geographical atlases], Geodesy and Cartography 35(4): 144-151.
Gurciniene, O. 2007. Jutimo ir suvokimo mechanizmai [Mechanisms of senses and perception]. Vilnius: VU leidykla.
Gurciniene, O.; Soliunas, A. 2005. Ivairaus simetrijos laipsnio daugiakampiu simetrijos aptikimo ypatumai [Pecularities of symmetry detection in polygons with different degree of symmetry], Psichologija [Psychology] 31: 101-112. ISSN 1392-0359
Kaffemanas, R. 1997. Suvokimo psichologija [Perception psychology]. Siauliai: SU l-kla.
Kaffemanas, R. 2001. Mqstymo psichologija [Cogitative psychology]. Siauliai: SU l-kla.
Kaffemanas, R. 2002. Jutimo psichologija [Sense psychology]. Siauliai: SU I-kla.
MacEachren, A. M. 2004. How maps work. Representation, visualization and design. New York: Guilford Press.
Martisius, V. 2008. Kognityvine psichologija. I dalis. Suvokimas ir atmintis [Cognitive psychology. Part I: perception and memory]. Kaunas: Vytauto Didziojo universiteto leidykla.
Rociute, I. 2009. Kartografiniu ienklu sistemu Lietuvos mokykliniuose geografijos atlasuose suvokimo tyrimas [Analysis of perception of cartographic sign systems in Lithuanian geography atlases for school]. Magistro baigiamasis darbas [Master's thesis]. VU, Vilnius.
Rociute, I.; Dumbliauskiene, M. 2009. Kartografiniu zenklu suvokimo tyrimas Lietuvos mokyklose [Analysis of the perception of cartographic signs in Lithuanian schools], Geografija [Geography] 45(1): 18-24.
Rociute, I.; Dumbliauskiene, M. 2011. Analysis of perception of cartographic sign systems in Lithuanian geography atlases for school, in Proceedings of the 25th International Cartographic Conference, 3-8 July, 2011, Paris, France [online], [cited 19 March 2013]. ISBN 978-1-907075-05-6, ID CO287. Available from Internet: http://icaci.org/documents/ICC_proceedings/ICC2011/
Stanikunas, R.; Vaitkevicius, H.; Svegzda, A.; Viliunas, V.; Daugirdiene, A.; Kulikowski, J. J.; Murray, I. J. 2004. Du objektu spalvu suvokimo procesai [Two processes in object colour perception], Psichologija [Psychology] 30: 7-16.
Vaitkevicius, P. H. 2002. Pojuciai ir suvokimas. Regimuju vaizdu suvokimas [Senses and perception. Perception of visual images]. Vilnius: VU leidykla.
Wiegand, P. 2006. Learning and teaching with maps. UK: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203477793
Department of Geography and Land Management, Faculty of Natural Sciences,
Vilnius University, M. K. Ciurlionio g. 21, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania
Inga ZALALIENE. PhD student at the Department of Geography and Land Management, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Vilnius University, M. K. Ciurlionio g. 21, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania. Ph +370 603 17522, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
MSc from Vilnius University, 2003.
Research interests: cartographical semiotic.
Table 1. Features of semantic and taxonomic differentiation and transitive expression and their characteristics Correct Semantic In the legend, the cartographic signs are clearly differentiation grouped according to certain features. The distinguished groups are titled. 2-3 semantic groups of signs are used. Partly correct Most of the cartographic signs in the legend are grouped according to certain features but the semantic groups not always are titled. Semantic groups are distinguished yet untitled. Moreover, different groups of signs are not separated (for example by adding space between lines). This makes the semantic differentiation difficult to comprehend. Not expressed The map depicts one object, phenomenon or process with few features. Therefore, the legend is simple. Only a few signs are explained. Correct Taxonomic The relation with a real object, phenomenon or differentiation process is clearly visualised through respective features: shape and size of signs and colour and shading intensity. A simple hierarchic structure of signs is use: 3-4 hierarchic ranks of signs are dominant. Partly correct Most of the used cartographic signs are correctly taxonomically differentiated yet not all of them. The hierarchy of cartographic signs is poorly visualised, e.g. graphic signs hardly differ in size and the differences of line thickness or colour and shading intensity are hardly discernible. Not expressed The theme of the map is narrow and does not require visualisation of the links between the cartographic signs and real objects, phenomena or processes (few cartographic signs are used; the hierarchic links between signs are absent). Correct Transitive The colour and shading scales and size of signs are expression not random. They are selected following principles of logic and semantic rules. The scales clearly visually differ in size: colour transitiveness and intensity are correct, shading intensity is clear as is the difference between the sizes of the used signs. The number of intervals is optimal: maximum 5-6 intervals. Partly correct The colour and shading scales and size of signs are not random. They are selected following principles of logic and semantic rules. The small and large scales are not clearly discernible: distinguishing between colours and shades and size of signs requires effort. The scale interval is at variance with the principle of transition: a colour, a shade or one of the signs falls out of the context. 6-8 or even more intervals are used. Not expressed The theme of the map does not require transitive expression index. Table 2. Evaluation indices of graphic and informative loads, cartographic basis, graphic originality, standardisation level and readability and their characteristics Overload Graphic load Very many signs and letterings: --cartographic signs and letterings drown in each other; --signs are indiscernible and hardly recognizable; --letterings are almost illegible; --there are difficulties in associating letterings with objects. Acceptable Letterings and signs are not many: --signs and letterings do not drown in each other; --signs are easily discernible and recognizable; --letterings are easily readable; --letterings are easily associated with objects. Underload Mapping is performed by cartogram method; Low density of signs and letterings; Many "free" areas: signs and letterings are concentrated in one or a few small areas. Overload Informative load A great variety of signs: signs of different shapes and colours are used; A great variety of letterings: different font types and sizes; different font colours; Especially detailed quantitative and qualitative scales are used (more than five intervals); A complicated hierarchic sign structure is used. Optimal Information is represented using 2-3 semantic groups of signs; The hierarchic structure of signs is simple: 3 hierarchic levels are dominant; The qualitative and quantitative scales have 5 intervals or categories at most. Underload Only one object, phenomenon or process is depicted; A few objects, phenomena or processes are depicted yet their territorial distribution is limited; they have few informative attributes. Optimal Cartographic basis When most of the following elements are plotted: Hydrographic network, i.e. rivers, lakes, seas and other big bodies of water with names indicated (irrespective of the theme or scale of the map); Capitals and main cities of countries with names given (irrespective of the theme and scale of the map); Administrative territorial distribution (irrespective of the theme or scale of the map); Cartographic grid (irrespective of the theme or scale of the map); Relief (with respect to the theme of the map); Forests (flora) (with respect to the theme of the map); Network of motor roads and railways (with respect to the theme of the map). Medium optimal When only some of the elements of cartographic basis listed in the section "Optimal" are plotted. Some of the elements due to be plotted with respect to the scale and theme of the map are missing, e.g.: --cartographic grid is missing; --names of some administrative territories are not given (in small scale maps); --not all capital cities of the countries are The elements of cartographic basis are rather generalised, i.e. lack detail, e.g.: the river network is too generalised, names of rivers are not given (in the maps of all scales). Not optimal When are plotted: --Only administrative territorial distribution without indication of the names of the plotted territories. --Administrative territorial distribution and a few largest rivers without names (in large scale maps). Pronounced Original depiction techniques attracting user's attention are used: --technique of symbols--especially original imitating/stylised (photographs) or unusual symbols are used; --technique of qualitative-quantitative background--especially well matched (between themselves and with other signs) colours and original shades are used to attract user's attention. An original cartographic basis is used, e.g. shadowed relief strengthening perception. Original shades are used. Nonstandard original letterings are used. Moderate Graphic Only a small part of the graphic image is marked originality by original expression: e.g. only a few attractive cartographic signs (imitating/ stylised) are used which hardly facilitate the general perception of the cartographic image; Well matched colours and/or shades are used yet they are not strongly attracting attention; Traditional easily readable letterings are used. Absent Undistinguished depiction techniques are used, which do not attract user's attention and do not facilitate (in many cases even encumber) the readability of the cartographic "text": --the cartographic signs used are simple and undistinguished; in the majority of cases they are difficultly perceivable abstract conventional signs; --the colours used lack expressivity; they are not contrasting and not harmonised; --the shades are undistinguished and not attractive; --the letterings are simple and undistinguished. Standardised Standardisation Nationally and internationally standardised level mandatory systems of cartographic signs are used. Such are geological, soil and synoptic maps. Usually maps of these types are easily readable and perceptible. Those who have practice in reading these thematic maps usually do not need to refer to the legend. Partly standardised Institutionally standardised systems of signs are used. In the course of time, standards of representing certain objects become established (e.g. colours for different zones in maps of vegetation zones or colours representing different stands in maps of forests) though not approved by appropriate organisations. Usually, cartographic signs of this kind are standardised based on one attribute: colour or shape. These maps are sufficiently easily readable because at least some of the used signs can be recognised without referring to the legend; especially if the user has practice of reading maps of these kinds. Not standardised The used systems of cartographic signs are not internationally, nationally or institutionally standardised. In order to understand them, reference to the legend is necessary what encumbers fast reading and perception. Good Readability Imitating/stylised and/or symbolic (especially ostensive) signs are used of identical or symbolic colour; The used signs and letterings do not drown in each other; The colour (and its intensity) and size of signs make possible their easy discernment on the background; Signs are easily distinguished from each other; Letterings can be easily attributed to relevant objects; Cartographic signs in legends are correctly semantically and taxonomically differentiated; Optimal cartographic basis is used; Correct colour and/or shading scales are used. They are not random but selected sticking to the principles of logic and semantic rules; Transitive expression index is represented by an optimal number of intervals: maximum 5-6 intervals; The information is represented using 2-3 semantic groups of signs; The qualitative and quantitative scales are composed of 5 intervals or categories at most; The used cartographic signs are internationally and/or nationally standardised; The cartographic methods employed are original and attracting user's attention. Encumbered Wrongly selected symbolic signs are dominant; only a small number of imitating/stylised signs are used; The used signs are difficultly discernible in the background due to similar colour; Some of the used signs are too small or too inconspicuous to distinguish between their shape and/or colour; There are rather many letterings; Semantic differentiation is only partly correct; The cartographic basis is of medium optimum; Transitive expression index is represented by 6-8 intervals; The used cartographic signs are institutionally standardised. Bad Abstract conventional signs are used; Signs in the map legend are not semantically grouped (logical groups are absent); Hierarchic relations between the signs and signified real objects, phenomena and processes are incorrect; Signs and letterings are rather variable in shape and colour and drown in each other (graphic overload); Signs are too small or inconspicuous to distinguish between their shapes; The used qualitative and quantitative scales are especially detailed (more than 5 intervals); The used cartographic basis is not optimal; The colours and shades are too intensive (transitive expression) what encumbers distinguishing the cartographic signs in the background; Systems of cartographic signs are not standardised. Table 3. Analysed scholastic geography atlases and the number of cartographic signs in them Analysed scholastic geography atlases The number of cartographic signs "Briedis" publishing house: I atlas The Earth. Geographical Atlas for 89 the 6th form (2004) II atlas The Earth. Interactive teaching 151 geographical Atlas for the 6th form (2010) III atlas The Earth. Geographical Atlas for 494 the 7th form (2004) IV atlas The Earth. Interactive teaching 574 geographical Atlas for the 7th form (2010) V atlas The Earth. Geographical Atlas for 892 the 8th form (2007) VI atlas The Earth. Interactive teaching 786 geographical Atlas for the 8th form (2011) VII atlas Geographical Atlas of Lithuania 404 for the 9th form (1999) VIII atlas The Earth. Geographical Atlas for 371 the 9th form (2005) IX atlas The Earth. Geographical Atlas for 424 the 10th form (2007) X atlas The Earth. Scholastic Geographical 1974 Atlas (2006) "Sviesa" publishing house: XI atlas We are many--the World is one. 252 Geographical Atlas for the 6th form (2008) XII atlas Geographical Atlas for the 7-8th 1033 forms (2011) XIII atlas Lithuania Europe the World. 750 Geographical Atlas for the 9th-10th forms (2007) XIV atlas Atlas of Integrated Geography for 1198 Schools (2005) "Alma littera" publishing house: XV atlas World Atlas (2008) 1983 "Pradai" publishing house: XVI atlas Universal World Atlas (1996) 1180 "Didakta" publishing house: XVII atlas New World Atlas (2009) 1380 Fig. 1. Distribution of point, line and area patterns in the analysed scholastic geographical atlases (%) areal line point signs signs signs I atlas 31.5 47.2 21.3 II atlas 56.9 20.5 19.9 III atlas 48.2 22.9 28.9 IV atlas 66.7 12.2 21.1 V atlas 44.5 14 41.5 VI atlas 41.5 13.6 44.8 VII atlas 44.1 21.5 34.4 VIII atlas 58 19.4 22.6 IX atlas 45 13.9 41 X atlas 48.1 16.2 35.7 XI atlas 55.2 9.9 34.9 XII atlas 35.8 10 64.2 XIII atlas 45.5 9.9 44.7 XIV atlas 54.1 12.1 33.8 XV atlas 52.7 3.7 43.6 XVI atlas 47.5 15.3 37.3 XVII atlas 58.7 8.8 32.5 at all atlases 48.8 12.6 38.6 Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 2. Association capacity of the shape of signs in the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) abstract conventional symbolic imitating/ signs signs stylized signs I atlas 15.8 82.9 1.3 II atlas 6.5 82.2 11.4 III atlas 11.4 88 0.6 IV atlas 11.8 83.8 4.4 V atlas 8 90.1 1.9 VI atlas 8 88 4 VII atlas 13.1 82.2 4.7 VIII atlas 16.7 79.9 3.4 IX atlas 11.6 87.6 0.7 X atlas 10.5 87.6 1.9 XI atlas 13.5 73.1 13.4 XII atlas 16.9 81 2.1 XIII atlas 16.8 82 1.2 XIV atlas 17.7 78.9 3.3 XV atlas 11.8 83.9 4.3 XVI atlas 18.5 79.7 1.9 XVII atlas 11.3 88 0.8 at all atlases 12.9 83.5 3.6 Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 3. Association capacity of the cartographic colours in the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) indifferent symbolic identical I atlas 46.4 49.6 3.9 II atlas 52.3 37.1 10.6 III atlas 26.8 72.6 0.5 IV atlas 41.7 56.5 1.8 V atlas 22.4 75.7 1.9 VI atlas 43.1 56.5 0.4 VII atlas 51.5 48.5 9 VIII atlas 50.5 46 3.4 IX atlas 45.2 54.8 0 X atlas 35.8 63.3 0.9 XI atlas 43.4 42.8 13.8 XII atlas 59.1 38.9 2 XIII atlas 50.4 48.8 0.7 XIV atlas 58.6 39.7 1.7 XV atlas 85.9 14 0.1 XVI atlas 32.3 67.1 0.7 XVII atlas 54 46 at all atlases 47 50.5 2.5 Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 4. Semantic diferentiation in the legends of the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) not expressed partly correct correct I atlas 54.5 9.1 36.4 II atlas 61.9 9.5 28.6 III atlas 52.5 6.6 41 IV atlas 22 6 72 V atlas 36.5 14.1 49.4 VI atlas 15.4 13.5 71.2 VII atlas 40.5 11.9 47.6 VIII atlas 42.9 2.4 54.8 IX atlas 30.4 6.5 63 X atlas 45.5 7.7 46.9 XI atlas 50 50 XII atlas 47.1 52.9 XIII atlas 31.5 3.7 64.8 XIV atlas 29.9 1.1 69 XV atlas 37.2 23.8 39 XVI atlas 11.3 2.8 85.9 XVII atlas 47.9 5 47.1 at all atlases 38.6 7.3 54.1 Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 5. Taxonomic diferentiation (representation of hierarchic relations) in the legends of the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) not expressed partly correct correct I atlas 72.7 0 27.3 II atlas 90 0 10 III atlas 87.1 1.6 11.3 IV atlas 92 0 8 V atlas 92.9 0 7.1 VI atlas 92.3 0 7.7 VII atlas 75.6 2.4 22 VIII atlas 81 0 19 IX atlas 76.1 0 23.9 X atlas 91.9 0.5 7.7 XI atlas 90 0 10 XII atlas 58.6 0 41.4 XIII atlas 83.3 0 16.7 XIV atlas 81.8 2.3 15.9 XV atlas 83 0.4 16.6 XVI atlas 80 1.4 18.6 XVII atlas 81 0 19 at all atlases 82.9 0.5 16.6 Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 6. Transitive expression in the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) not expressed partly correct correct I atlas 36.4 9.1 54.5 II atlas 25 0 75 III atlas 11.3 45.2 43.5 IV atlas 10 32 58 V atlas 13.3 38.6 48.2 VI atlas 1.9 40.4 57.7 VII atlas 12.2 46.3 41.5 VIII atlas 11.9 38.1 50 IX atlas 10.9 30.4 58.7 X atlas 10.5 32.1 57.4 XI atlas 45 0 55 XII atlas 1.6 15.6 82.8 XIII atlas 16.7 14.8 68.5 XIV atlas 18.2 8 73.9 XV atlas 29.6 41.3 29.1 XVI atlas 15.7 10 74.3 XVII atlas 6.6 18.2 75.2 at all atlases 15.3 24.7 59 Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 7. Graphic load in the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) underload acceptable overload I atlas 27.3 72.7 0 II atlas 55 45 0 III atlas 63.9 36.1 0 IV atlas 52 48 0 V atlas 35.3 64.7 0 VI atlas 25 69.2 5.8 VII atlas 41.5 58.5 0 VIII atlas 59.5 40.5 0 IX atlas 82.6 17.4 0 X atlas 53.6 45 1.4 XI atlas 15 85 0 XII atlas 24.3 74.3 1.4 XIII atlas 24.1 70.4 5.6 XIV atlas 19.3 73.9 6.8 XV atlas 43.9 56.1 0 XVI atlas 28.6 71.4 0 XVII atlas 23.1 72.7 4.1 at all atlases 39.6 58.9 1.5 Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 8. Information load in the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) underload optimal overload I atlas 36.4 63.6 0 II atlas 30 70 0 III atlas 14.8 85.2 0 IV atlas 14 86 0 V atlas 10.6 89.4 0 VI atlas 9.6 90.4 0 VII atlas 12.2 87.8 0 VIII atlas 42.9 57.1 0 IX atlas 39.1 60.9 0 X atlas 13.4 86.6 0 XI atlas 0 100 0 XII atlas 1.4 98.6 0 XIII atlas 13 87 0 XIV atlas 3.4 96.6 0 XV atlas 50.2 49.8 0 XVI atlas 5.7 94.3 0 XVII atlas 7.4 92.6 0 at all atlases 17.9 82.1 0 Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 9 Optimality of cartographic basis in the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) not optimal medium optimal optimal I atlas 36.4 27.3 36.4 II atlas 50 40 10 III atlas 67.2 19.7 13.1 IV atlas 80.4 3.9 15.7 V atlas 44.7 31.8 23.5 VI atlas 28.8 34.6 36.5 VII atlas 34.1 29.3 36.6 VIII atlas 52.4 14.3 33.3 IX atlas 87 10.9 2.2 X atlas 61.2 20.6 18.2 XI atlas 40 25 35 XII atlas 22.9 32.9 44.3 XIII atlas 29.6 9.3 61.1 XIV atlas 25 18.2 56.8 XV atlas 61 18.8 20.2 XVI atlas 34.3 15.7 50 XVII atlas 26.4 35.5 38 at all 46 22.8 31.2 atlases Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 10. Graphic originality in the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) absent moderate pronounced I atlas 27.3 54.5 18.2 II atlas 80 15 5 III atlas 72.6 25.8 1.6 IV atlas 56 24 20 V atlas 61.2 18.8 20 VI atlas 38.5 25 36.5 VII atlas 73.2 19.5 7.3 VIII atlas 83.3 11.9 4.8 IX atlas 84.8 15.2 0 X atlas 73.7 13.9 12.4 XI atlas 30 40 30 XII atlas 41.4 41.4 17.1 XIII atlas 57.4 37 5.6 XIV atlas 53.4 34.1 12.5 XV atlas 38.1 40.8 21.1 XVI atlas 50 17.1 32.9 XVII atlas 62 23.1 14.9 at all 57.8 26.9 15.3 atlases Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 11. Standardisation in the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) not standardised partly standardised standardised I atlas 54.5 45.5 0 II atlas 45 55 0 III atlas 50.8 49.2 0 IV atlas 54 46 0 V atlas 69.4 30.6 0 VI atlas 52 48 0 VII atlas 63 37 0 VIII atlas 71 29 0 IX atlas 100 0 X atlas 68.9 31.1 0 XI atlas 85 15 0 XII atlas 31.4 68.6 0 XIII atlas 77.8 22.2 0 XIV atlas 71.6 28.4 0 XV atlas 79.4 20.6 0 XVI atlas 64.3 35.7 0 XVII atlas 52.9 47.1 0 at all 64.2 35.8 0 atlases Note: Table made from bar graph. Fig. 12. Readability in the analysed maps of scholastic geographic atlases (%) bad encumbered good I atlas 0 27.3 72.7 II atlas 5 35 60 III atlas 1.6 70.5 27.9 IV atlas 0 72 28 V atlas 0 41.2 58.8 VI atlas 0 32.7 67.3 VII atlas 0 19.5 80.5 VIII atlas 0 0 100 IX atlas 0 60.9 39.1 X atlas 1.4 49.3 49.3 XI atlas 0 50 50 XII atlas 1.4 38.6 60 XIII atlas 3.7 35.2 61.1 XIV atlas 4.5 30.7 64.8 XV atlas 14.8 50.2 35 XVI atlas 4.3 32.9 62.9 XVII atlas 5.8 24.8 69.4 at all 2.5 39.4 58 atlases Note: Table made from bar graph.
Please note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Geodesy and Cartography|
|Date:||Dec 1, 2013|
|Previous Article:||A comparative analysis of different DEM interpolation methods.|
|Next Article:||A vector machine based approach towards object oriented classification of remotely sensed imagery.|