I agree this is a lot better, but like some other people I have problems with the background colours. In my case, it's hard to distinguish the blue from the black. Would it help to change the black to grey, or even a third colour such as pale yellow or green?
I also agree with the suggestion of a white line between the projected and called states. And the labels do seem to read "Projections Called for McCain" - perhaps they should be in the middle of each section rather than adjacent to the borders?
Someone else commented about how it will display when any of the four areas are empty (i.e. right at the start or the end). I hadn't thought of that but I assume you have some test data sets for those cases.
In the explanation of the state labels, you say a figure of 18% means that the state is projected to go for Obama by a margin of 18%. Does this mean that states projected to go for McCain will have a negative percentage (which could be perceived as bias in the chart), or would it be better to say that the state is projected to go for "the indicated candidate" by that margin?
no subject
I also agree with the suggestion of a white line between the projected and called states. And the labels do seem to read "Projections Called for McCain" - perhaps they should be in the middle of each section rather than adjacent to the borders?
Someone else commented about how it will display when any of the four areas are empty (i.e. right at the start or the end). I hadn't thought of that but I assume you have some test data sets for those cases.
In the explanation of the state labels, you say a figure of 18% means that the state is projected to go for Obama by a margin of 18%. Does this mean that states projected to go for McCain will have a negative percentage (which could be perceived as bias in the chart), or would it be better to say that the state is projected to go for "the indicated candidate" by that margin?