I have a full draft of my final project. Yippee! I went with the Google Maps because I could figure out how to feed in the underlying image. Though I struggled with them (and in the end, they don’t look great), I managed to make my own icons and customized the colors. However, because the icon files are tied to the current URL, I won’t be migrating my website to a more descriptive URL anytime soon. Oh well….
Two things that I need to work on after I take care of some things for my other class (which I have sadly been ignoring):
- I am going to attempt to change the centering and the zoom on the maps at the initial load so that they are focused in on the historic underlays.
- I plan to write long descriptions of my maps and make my site as accessible as possible.
Outside any general critiques, I have one thing for which I would like your specific feedback. The historic map underlays take 15 seconds to load using my wireless DSL Internet connection (in Firefox 4). They are very large files. But, any smaller and they blur out significantly when you zoom in. I think it’s a worthwhile trade off to have them there. What do you think? If I keep them in their large form, any suggestions on cutting down load time? Or how might I warn the user that the load time is a bit long?
And thanks everyone for all the feedback this semester. It’s been a trip!
PS – Thanks Alex for the shapefile. Unfortunately, Geocommons rejected it. Grrr….
Hey.. I think it’s the right call to keep them bigger. I’ve worked on sites where high load times come with the territory and we often prominently displayed a warning box with a very simple warning. I think since your argument depends on high quality map functionality, you can get away with this. You can always offer a less-interactive version for folks with slower connections. Or at least them them know they have other options, like writing to you or an alt page? (Hate to recommend building more pages at this stage!)
I’m with Erin. Also, we’ve been trained by Google maps already to wait a few seconds for the map to load. I noticed the key for the historic map pops right up, so it also serves as a visual cue that there’s more to come.
[...] week, I’ve commented on Laura’s post. Laura’s maps and Erin’s search terms make me realize just how well-trained Google has [...]
On my Comcast wireless connection, it takes about three and a half seconds on average for the maps to correctly load. Considering that text is the first thing you see on each successive page, even if the maps took a bit longer to load, I do not think it would be distracting for the average user, particularly if they actually read the content first like they are supposed to.
This site is an amazing visual journey back through time that gives answers to questions I am sure many historians would not think to ask. It is also very easy to navigate through, and its format and use of maps could be adapted to multiple subjects. Bravo!
I didn’t experience any great frustration with the map load time; I think, given their predominance in your argument, the time is justified. I believe the only problem now with your website is that government historian offices throughout DC are going to have very false impressions of what their employees should be able to do. I very much admire your dedication to your topic, and your work. You have illuminated a little known corner of congressional history, and that’s something very worthwhile. You get the public historian’s gold star for 2011!
(Blushing) Thanks everyone! And perhaps my Internet connection (provided by a large, evil company which shall remain nameless) is just particularly slow.
Should I have the energy, perhaps I will provide alternative pages with screen shots. But, for now, I am going to focus on cleaning up what I have and basic accessibility.
[...] week I commented on the fine work of Roger, Laura, and Erin, and responded to Royce’s post on help in the [...]