Live data from Hacker News

What Happened to Google Maps?

justinobeirne.com

41–50 of 201 posts

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#42
post #38

The comparison to a paper map is stupid. A paper map is severely limited in that you can't zoom in on it so it has to be packed with enough information to hopefully be useful. An interactive map only needs to give you enough context to know what to zoom in on. If I'm using a touch interface that overloads me with information in one screen, it's a bad interface. It's like claiming that the new york times should displa…

[deleted]

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#44
It's probably already been said, but comparing Google Maps to a paper map is stupid.

The paper map has to have lots of cities on it, because there's no other way to find where exactly the specific suburb is if it's not on the map. In Google Maps, you can zoom in, you can search, you can have a link for direction sent to you, ...

The author may claim "less is just less", but apart from "printing a map before knowing where I'm going", I can't think of a situation where the "improved" map would be at all useful.

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#46
post #23

Google know more than the author about how Google Maps is used by end users. The author is grading Google Maps based on the number of cities and roads displayed, not how the users use it. Google provide an alternative mapping product, Google Earth, for satisfying curiosity about the planet. Google maps is primarily a navigation tool. They have very distinct use cases.

I'm sure Google knows more than the author about their own maps, but please give the author his due: he wrote a successful blog called 41Latitude that did a lot of in-depth analysis of Google Maps's display of information, and later led the Apple Maps team. If he has something to say about information density on maps, I'm inclined to listen.

I don't think the fact that the author prefers the map he designed means anything about which one is actually better or more usable, regardless of his credentials.

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#47
post #25

There's a broad trend of tech companies disrupting traditional industries and then making rookie mistakes and generally not living up to the standards of the tradition. Google, hire cartographers. Amazon, hire librarians and typesetters. Spotify, hire musicologists.

Why do you think they haven't?

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#49

I'm surprised the author didn't mention the main difference between paper maps and google maps. That is, google maps is interactive. With a paper map what you see is what you get. You had to cram as much information as it would allow. But this is not the case with google maps. You can zoom in, out, and anywhere in between. You can't compare the two based on the level of information displayed at one fixed zoom level b…

Not only zooming, Google Maps also has search. If you're looking for Oakland, CA, you go to the search bar and type "Oakland, CA", and it shows up on the map. No need to scan the map for the thing you're looking for, that's the computer's job!

On a phone, scanning can be much faster and more pleasant than typing.

Re: What Happened to Google Maps?

#50

I'm surprised the author didn't mention the main difference between paper maps and google maps. That is, google maps is interactive. With a paper map what you see is what you get. You had to cram as much information as it would allow. But this is not the case with google maps. You can zoom in, out, and anywhere in between. You can't compare the two based on the level of information displayed at one fixed zoom level b…

Not only zooming, Google Maps also has search. If you're looking for Oakland, CA, you go to the search bar and type "Oakland, CA", and it shows up on the map. No need to scan the map for the thing you're looking for, that's the computer's job!

I guess the main complaint of OP is not about finding a particular location, but to create a mental map with the area of concern. To create mental map efficiently, the map has to show large enough to cover the area of concern, yet has to show enough landmarks to associate with. It's crucial to have both information simultaneously in a single sight---if you have to do something to see one information at a time it becomes very inefficient.

That said, I suspect that there's a fundamental difference of processing maps among people; I like to store a map in my head and trace mentally. When I drive, I prefer to see the map always north up, so it's easy to synchronize with my mental map. However, most car navigation systems orient the map as your direction---I find it very uncomfortable, but apparently that's most people want.

Post reply on HN