New York Times map and data for Super Tuesday

Others have already blogged this, but it bears repeating — this is a beautiful package of data. Loads like lightning. Combines Flash and XML and HTML and CSS. Easy to figure out. Just a gorgeous example of what a team of smart, well-organized journalists can put together if they know what they’re doing.

New York Times election package - maps and data

Super Tuesday results detail - California

Primary elections detail - Tennessee counties

4 Comments on “New York Times map and data for Super Tuesday

  1. Mindy, have you seen Google Maps’ coverage of Super Tuesday? It was beautiful.
    http://maps.google.com/decision2008
    I just turned off the annoying TV and checked Google’s every now and then, because I just wanted to know the “facts.” It was being updated live, integrating people’s Twitter messages about the results! (Just search “Super Tuesday” in Google and the first result will be the above link.)
    I loved NY Times package too, specially because it shows the delegate counts at a glance.

  2. Mindy, you need to show your colleagues who don’t think journalists need to know HTML, CSS, Flash, etc this feature. It takes journalists and journalism to create a feature like this.

    And what powerful journalism it is.

    I also blogged about this because I feel features like this are much better at covering elections than printed stories are.

  3. Mindy, I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with you on this one. A co-worker and I were talking about this today. Overall, it’s a strong effort, but there were some lacking details that made me seek information elsewhere (CNN, Google’s Super Tuesday Map).

    1. Color selection: For the Democrats, I’m guessing that’s teal and tan? How about light blue and dark blue? For the Republicans, I had a harder time; once in a while, I’m susceptible to light color blindness and the Romney and Huckabee shades were too similar, even though a co-worker tells me one is red and one is brown.

    2. The key’s “Leader/Winner” line is broken on two lines; almost as if Obama is “Leader” and Clinton is “Winner.” Also, which is it? Leader or winner? What’s the difference? Is there a difference?

    3. The stats column has five individual columns composing information, but there are only three headers. I didn’t find it obvious what the check/non-checkboxes represented, but for some reason I found a check obvious on other websites indicating that a winner (as far as the paper was concerned) had been decided. The plus percentage was also confusing; is that the number of delegates? Number of total precincts?

    4. Rollovers are inconsistent; When you mouse over the map, you see the breakdown of the state, and the corresponding state highlights in the data column. Cool. But when you hover the data column, it lights up, but only the state lights up; the preview isn’t shown. Seems like a wasted opportunity.

    5. Alaska and Hawaii are missing from the default map view. If you click on Alaska, the map scrolls up to it, but clicking on “Show U.S.” to zoom back out leaves Alaska off the map. …and Alaska is still part of the U.S.

    6. Not all of the states have individual precinct data. I feel like that should be mentioned somehow beforehand because at first I was excited to see my state’s data only to be disappointed later.

    Keep in mind that I found more positive things than negative about this infographic; aside from the flaws here, I found it informative and helpful for the most part.

  4. Thanks, Rich — that’s a very good analysis. The factor of color-blindness is important — a large number of men are red-green colorblind, and thus it is problematic to use those colors to convey information.

    Also, given the differences in the way computer screens render colors, too-subtle distinctions in shades or hues can be indiscernible.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.