As these maps get more complex it becomes easier to get lost in them. Some notions and artifacts are very similar and even overlap. Thus I become to a point where I want to bring them together. Since they are quite a way apart, the would become unreadable when connected. That is why some parts might be a bit repetitive and even not connected although they should be.
Also as the theories and approaches pile up, I find it necessary to write more detailed descriptions of them to the map. That makes the nodes larger and the picture a bit harder to read, but once I get into it, I am at least able to distinguish between them.
I also find, while going back to previous maps, that I should have been a bit more descriptive. Some concepts might be a bit confusing at first and I need to think back in order to thoroughly understand them. I believe that this might be the case for everyone while looking at it.
As far as the map is concerned it is making a lot more sense of the overall build-up of theories and approaches in HCI. It is now a more comprehensible overall picture with most of the modern theories and approaches also listed. If I compare the concepts to my own knowledge and what I have read in “HCI Theory” by Yvonne Rogers, it is now a better comparable picture to the relations between HCI, design theories and computer sciences.
What I fear most of all is when we go to map the contemporary theory. Mainly because I dont know how I am able to portrait the concepts to the same map as well. It might be a bit of a challenge.