[antoniomedrano]

It would be interesting to know if Uber did quantitative testing on their new design. The author's gut feeling or personal aesthetic may have very little to do with such a map's real world effectiveness and performance. The author also emphasizes label contrast. It seems that the Uber map has more network contrast, which might be a use case they value.

[dav3t]

It's not really a gut feeling though. The uber map does have worse contrast.. it could be proven scientifically. And the new app's 2.5-star rating suggests it hasn't been effective in the real world.(https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/uber/id368677368)

Would love to know how it was tested.

[glennon]

The new map appears to be emphasizing the road network and user-generated overlays; i.e., pick up, drop off, and (soon) people locations. There is less label contrast, and while that could be proven scientifically, it does not make the map "better" or "worse". Its appropriateness depends on how use case success is measured. Contrasting the 2.5 star app rating, tweets about the new UI show 20 to 1 approval. I agree with you, though -- I would love to know how the new map was tested.

[dav3t]

We don't know which use case is being measured, but let's not kid ourselves.. the dominant use case is confirming one's pickup location on the map. Given the dominant use case, the map's reduced legibility = a worse map. (Map labels are used to confirm surroundings, and network isn't as important because riders aren't navigating.)

Also, comparing tweets to app store ratings isn't apples to apples. Everyone using uber's app has an app store account and can leave ratings. But not everyone who uses the app has a twitter account. (And ~40-50% of twitter accounts don't tweet.) So twitter results are skewed.

App store rating is the more meaningful metric.