Eduardo's blog

When I created the maps of delivery riders on Granary Square, I noticed how people inhabit the same space in very different ways. Riders were always moving — except for one or two who stopped briefly to check their phones — while other people sat around eating, drinking, and enjoying the sun and the water fountains. People were in the same physical location, but in different social spaces. I saw a link with maps as I saw these social borders between them. Additionally the time dimension of the maps I created made me want to explore what time means for delivery riders in the context of platform capitalism. The conversation with Nina Paim made me realise the need to be more specific about my research. At that point I wanted to keep researching delivery riders, which was too broad. Which riders? Brazilian, migrants, or any rider? What do I want to know about them? Am I only interested in their work, or also where they came from and how was life before? How and where will I get this information? Through interviews, secondary sources, or both? What do I want to do with this information? What is my audience?

The six texts below are references gathered during the Positions Through Contextualising brief.

Maps are projections. They project the surface of the Earth and displaying useful information like geographic locations and borders.

But these projections are not neutral. From the choice of projection method to translate spherical information into a plane and its resulting distortions, to the choice of information to be included, maps are tools of power that have helped shape nations, naturalise borders and territory. Therefore, instead of a representation of reality, maps project the intention of those who create them.

They are typically seen as a definitive piece of information, but we often forget that countries are fictions, and every border was once a disputed one.

How can mapping, or counter-mapping, interfere in this power dynamics? Can it show the nuances and reveal new knowledge behind apparently objective data?

In the first half of our exploration, we focused on CSM’s wayfinding system’s access barriers for everyone on campus. By focusing on the system instead of a specific group, we tried to be as inclusive as possible and make the best possible version. We created colour palettes that would work for colour-blind people and looked for access barriers for people with low mobility.

The resulting analysis revealed several fundamental issues that could represent access barriers. While tackling them is valuable and needed, we overlooked many other obstacles that only people who have experienced them could point out. 

In the final part of our work, we chose dyslexic people as our audience, which allowed for more focused research. We also reached out to dyslexic people, created a survey aimed at our audience, and interviewed one of the respondents. It was the first brief I engaged with my target audience. The fact that I am not dyslexic made it even more relevant.

Our problem-solving approach early on steered us into looking for one definitive solution. After the tutorial feedback, I realised that acknowledging my position and biases gives context to my work and situates it in a larger body of knowledge around design and disability justice.