I feel like this approach, while interesting and informative, is missing the mark.

What makes the Vignelli map so reviled? I don't think it had anything to do with how things appeared in your peripheral vision. Focusing on that (hah) is ignoring the main purpose of a map: to display geographical layouts and connectivity.

Obviously the Vignelli map does not show geographical layouts in anything but the most abstract manner, so it fails in that metric. If the geographical shape of the actual subway lines is so confusing as to inhibit your travel, interpreting the subway map is the least of your worries. In fact, having the proper geometry hidden by your map will only compound your confusion. It's not like you can hold your typical street map up next to the Vignelli subway map and quickly figure out where you are.

What the Vignelli map tried to do was strip out all extraneous information to make interpretation simpler. The geography was not extraneous. What it focused on was connectivity, but ever there it fails.

The Vignelli map is completely misleading about connectivity. If you were to look at any modern subway map you notice a trend that probably owes a lot to the Vignelli map: lines travel together in "bands" to show identical routes. You can assume that all the lines on a band hit the same stations and follow the same tunnel.

Here's the kicker though: on the Vignelli map they don't. You might assume from the map that all the red lines hit the same 34St station, but that's a lie. They hit 3 stations spread apart by many blocks.

Maps and other infographics have one primary objective: to present information clearly and honestly. Putting any other aim above that objective will betray the graphic and weaken it.