| "more useful" That is certainly up debate. The reason why the diagrammatic layout was (and is) highly praised by the public is because of its readibility. People only look at 2 locations: their current one and their destination. They will eventually look at possible routes and keep track of a couple of intersections. But everything in between remains unnoticed. It's like believing that users look at every pixel of your website while they actually scan a few spots only. The physical inaccuracy is irrelevant because you travel underground and only have a sense of time, not of space. Nobody would think "Wait, why is the tube turning North? We're supposed to go East!". You would think the geographical accuracy of the updated map could be useful for determining which route is the quickest (assuming that physically shorter == quicker). But several additional factors come into play, like traffic, distance between 2 platforms, distance to the street... This new map also mixes accurate layouts and schematic ones (for outer stations). So it's hard to tell at what point you can still rely upon the map for physical accuracy. I actually find this unofficial version really appealing. Probably because it's a fresh view on a familiar visual, and provides some "Oh, that's what it looks like" moments. I'm just questioning its usefulness, especially in a time where looking at a map has been rendered obsolete thanks to Citymapper. |