manipulated concurrently), none have replaced
the rainbow color map as default simply
because each has its own downfalls.
In continuing his discussion Moreland brings
up another kind of map, the ones created
by cartographers. Similarly concerned with
conveying information, cartography also takes
aesthetics into account, as it is very much an
art in itself. Cartographers often use what
is referred to as a “diverging color map”—
where Moreland got the name of his paper
from—in which there are only two major
color components. A diverging color map is
similar to an isoluminant map but improved,
with the transition from one color to another
passing through a neutral white or yellow. The
hierarchy of color is very natural here, unlike
in the rainbow map, and is also much easier on
the eye than other maps, as one can choose a
limited palette of harmonious color pairs. He
argues that with a little tweaking, this kind of
map could much better suit most research as
a default map, based on test data and theories
in color perception, with all
of the algorithms to back it
up. Unlike the predetermined
maps scientists use regularly,
the divergent color map has
built-in potential for creating
aesthetically pleasing color
combinations, while expressing
data more accurately. If it’s hard
for you to see why the rainbow
color map is not aesthetically
optimal, imagine wearing the
brightest version of every color,
all at once—you might look
amazing, but you won’t look
good. It may be that case that
the reason scientific papers are
printed mostly in black and white
is not to cut costs, but to spare
the senses.
If we are to abandon the
current maps, or replace the
default at the least, and try
to reinvent the scientific
visualization aesthetic to be
both functional and