Barton and Barton talk about the ideology and rhetoric behind map. This analysis is pretty new to me since I have never thought about the reasoning behind a map. The first idea argued in the article is the map as quintessentially ideological. The color used in map is for perception and recognition. For instance, Indiana is colored pink, but we all know that Indiana is not pink. The second idea of Barton and Barton is denaturalization of natural. When Barton and Barton are talking about denaturalization, they include the rule of inclusion and exclusion in their analysis, to make their argument more reasoning. Rule of inclusion determines when a thing is mapped, what aspects of the thing is mapped, and what representational strategies and devices are used to map those aspects. The first thing to be included in a map is phenomenon and aspects of phenomenon. Then, the second is to determine what kind of strategy or device to use to symbolize the particular phenomenon. And the last is to determine ordering. The practice of rule of inclusion needs accompany of rule of exclusion. In rule of exclusion, Barton and Barton talk about synchronic perspective and diachronic perspective.
The picture I used here is a statistical map to show the mean travel time to work among different states. From the map, we can easily understand what the map is talking about and easily see the statistical results. In the map, marker shows us that red means longest travel time to work, and dark green means shortest travel time to work. With those markers, we can easily derive that New York is one of the states that has longest travel time to work, and North Dakota is one the states has shortest mean travel time to work.
My question: What situation will cause the theory of Barton and Barton does not work for making map? Or, it is possible for the theory of Barton and Barton working negatively towards making map?