Integrating Consequence Design into Interaction Cartography:

  1. Awareness of Dark Patterns in Cartographic Representations: Just as dark patterns can deceive users in digital interfaces, misleading cartographic representations can manipulate perceptions. For instance, using colors or symbols that evoke certain emotions can lead to biased interpretations of data.

  2. Avoiding Designer Myopia in Cartography: Cartographers should always prioritize the user’s perspective. This involves understanding the diverse needs of users, ensuring that maps are not just designed based on the cartographer’s experiences or preferences.

  3. Preventing Attention Theft in Interactive Maps: Avoid overwhelming users with excessive notifications, pop-ups, or information. Ensure that every piece of information presented is relevant and adds value.

  4. Minimizing Coercive and Guilt Friction: Interaction cartography platforms should not manipulate users into taking specific actions, especially through emotional manipulation.

Applying the 4 Rs in Interaction Cartography:

  1. Reconsider Assumptions: Always question the initial assumptions made during the design process. This can involve reassessing data sources, visual representations, and user feedback mechanisms.

  2. Reframe the Problem Statement: Consider diverse user perspectives, especially those outside the typical audience. This might involve understanding how different demographics interpret and interact with maps.

  3. Rewrite Protocols: Regularly revisit and modify design protocols to ensure that they remain user-centric. This can involve revising data collection methods, visualization techniques, and interaction mechanisms.

  4. Repeat the Process: The field of interaction cartography, like any other discipline, will evolve. Regularly revisiting and refining the design process ensures that it remains relevant and user-focused.

Practical Methods for Interaction Cartography:

  1. Designated Dissenter: In cartographic design sprints, always have a team member who questions and challenges the mainstream design approach, considering how map representations might be misleading or open to misuse.

  2. Consequence Framing: Regularly ask key questions about the design decisions. For instance, “What biases might this color scheme introduce?” or “Who might be disadvantaged by this representation?”

  3. Friction Auditing: Conduct research to identify areas in interactive maps where users might experience friction, confusion, or deception.

  4. Harm Analysis: Before releasing a new interactive map or feature, evaluate potential harm. This might involve understanding how certain groups might interpret the map or if any misleading representations exist.

Incorporating these tenets of consequence design into interaction cartography ensures that the discipline remains ethical, transparent, and user-centric. It will also bolster the credibility of interaction cartography platforms and foster trust among users.

Built with Jekyll, Github, VSCode and served via Netlify.