In today’s discussion, I’ll be focusing on Chapter 1 from Edward Tufte’s “Flatland,” in which he identifies how all communication between the reader and makers of an image must be conveyed on a 2D surface - thus necessitating the escape from “flatland.” One particular example that struck me was the graphic timetable for a Java railroad line (Soerabaja-Djokakarta). In contrast to typical railroad maps which are very simply laid out, this graphical timetable is able to convert the three spatial dimensions of our daily world into one train relevant dimension. Upon first interpretation, I was easily lost by the complexity of the data presented, however it soon became a puzzle to figure out what parts corresponded to what. I found this especially captivating, for example, where the left margin of the timepoint represents a profile of the valleys and mountains crossed by the rail. This subtle detail provides a further nuance that isn’t captured in conventional maps, and epitomizes how the complexity of a 3-dimensional space can be converted effectively onto a 2D “flatland.” The design also suits the function, as this “16 variable schedule served as an internal planning document for the Java Railroad.” On the other hand, Tufte also identifies how the lack of these design principles can serve as the downfall for “chart junk” labelled pieces. For example, he points out Peter Blake’s “God’s Own Junkyard,” in which a whole building was distorted into a duck. Rather than having the work be open to self interpretation, this piece instead seeks to attract and divert attention by means of “display apparatus and ornament.” These negative features are factors that I will definitely be attune to for the future projects such as the mapping experiences project.