Second in a series.
We'll call this version 'Version A'...
Notes: the "vote" provided in the example is entirely hypothetical.
The senior senator from each state is always designated on the left-hand side or the top-hand side of each dyad, whichever is applicable.
A couple of alternate versions follow below the jump.
Version B...
Version C:
...and Version D:
1.01.2009
Mapping the New Senate
@ 7:36 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
170 comments
Not a fan of the new distorted maps. I would much prefer it if you just used a regular map and divided each state in half. That would make it a lot easier to find what you're looking for rather than trying to decipher this new map. Same for the house map.
Nate - the red letters inside the red squares are impossible to see on my monitor unless I'm standing up and staring almost straight down at the monitor.
I don't mind the distortion, but I agree with Nick about the difficulty to read red on red or blue on blue. I would suggest using the same color font regardless of Aye or Nay vote. The X's are enough visual evidence.
It would also be cool to use a asterisk next to the state name for a Junior or Senior Senator so it will be easy to instantly distinguish who voted which way. Like in this example, it would let you know if it was McCain or Kyl who voted Aye or Nay in Arizona.
What are they voting on?
So...what are they Aye, Nay, or Not Voting about? Or is this only intended as a demonstration?
if this were to go live, having each box, on mouseover, popup the senator's name, might be extremely useful.
I like the "distortion"--without it, the votes of the mountain states will always catch the eye too much.
But I agree that the font should always be white; the red on red and black on blue are just barely legible for me.
I also like the idea of being able to distinguish senior from junior senators: maybe capital and lower case (WV and wv)?
It seems to me like you don't need the geographic distortion for the senate -- why not focus more on trying to convey statistics about the states within the map (e.g., "did this state for obama" AND "who is this senator and how did he vote" within the same square)?
I also find the red-on-red and blue-on-blue legible, and a helpful visual indicator that the senator voted nay. This seems to be too hard to read on most screens, though, so perhaps gray-on-blue or gray-on-red?
I prefer the original example to the other two -- I still like my grey idea, though. Try it!
Other things can perhaps be conveyed with the shape of the box (circles for one characteristic, squares for another).
I like version 2. It's a more neutral representation of the Nay votes. An X has connotations of being incorrect, or somehow disqualified.
I like the third option best, by far.
alternate #2 is by far my favorite. the contrast is much, much clearer. It allows the senators who vote across party lines to pop out much more noticeably, and those swing-vote actors, after all, are gonna be the most interesting part of whatever analysis you attach to these maps.
Would also be cool to line the blocks up by the voteview Liberal<-->Conservative spectrum: Up-bar means yea, Down-Bar means Nay, color by party.
I like number 3
I'd like a conventional map with the info about the two senators/state within each state. I find what you're currently doing takes entirely too much thought and leaves me without usable info because I'm wondering what I missed, or miscounted, or ....
I like the X's, simple. But you do need a way to distinguish in states where both Senators are of the same party.
I like #1 in this post. It's simpler. It takes a couple minutes to digest #2.
I do like the distortion. Otherwise, the New England states would be practically invisible.
I like #2, or the 1st alternate, depending on how we're counting (maybe we should let the MN Canvassing Board vote on it :-P).
wv. kinki: Spitzer's adventures (couldn't resist)
I realize that the distortion cannot be geographically correct, but at least for the sake of better approximation: NH should be vertical, VT should be moved next to it (giving you VT NH ME), MA should be beneath VT & NH (leaving a space between ME & RI), and either NY can slide over to fill the space vacated by VT or CT can become horizontal to fill the space.
Should've added that #2 is easier to grasp the ayes/nays but the nays text/background constrast doesn't work as well as #1.
I vote for alternate #2; the black for "nay" votes makes it particularly intuitive. I like the distortion too.
I strongly prefer alternative #1. The original is too difficult to read the state of nay voters. Alternative number 2 is difficult to distinguish between R and D nay voters at a glance.
Also, alternate #2 makes it very easy to see how many Democrats v. Republicans voted for a particular bill.
I prefer alternate #1. Its the easiest to read. Also, I like the distortion because it equalizes each Senator's vote visually and in the end I think its easier to read than a geographically correct map with each state divided in half. I do think a mouse over feature that brings up the Senator's name would be nice though. The senior-top/left system only works if you know the names of all 100 Senators by heart.
Also, you should get rid of the box for DC. No senator. Seems like you're making a political statement by including a missing DC senator box.
I like Alternate #1 the best, and at first blush, I couldn't stand Alternate #2, but after reading some of these other comments, I can definitely appreciate the issue with "Nay" votes being indicated by Xs. Tricky stuff.
As for all the people who think that each state should be shaped like its geographical equivalent and overlayed with information about each senator: How would that look for, say, Rhode Island? Or, more likely to be an issue, Connecticut?
None of the above. I don't understand the need to put the information into a pseud-map. Have you read any Tufte lately?
Another way to do it would be to show different shades of red and blue for yea and nay votes. For example, dark could be yea and light could be nay. I think it would be easy to tell yes and no votes apart quickly and avoid the necessity of Xs to show nays.
#3
I like alternative #1 the best.
Either two or three.
2 looks cooler, but 3 shows a clearer cntrast.
Why can't you put the boxes onto an a geographical map of the 50 states, with the boxes situated inside the boundaries of their respective states. Not necessarily using the boxes to visually represent the state boundaries?
I like version C and D as you can quickly see how many reds and blues passed the bill. This could also be reversed if something fails. Highlight the nay voters to show who stopped it.
why not show two maps?
left is senior, right is junior
Yellow is yea, green is nay
I like the distorted maps. As a practical matter, any map at a reasonable scale wouldn't be able to show two senators for the littler New England/East Coast states. And in terms of conveying information, it makes clear that two RI senators carry exactly as much weight as two CA senators. Yes, this is something that we all know intellectually, but the visual represenation hammers it home viscerally.
I agree with people saying it should be put onto a regular geographic map. I don't see the point in this, it's difficult to read. Maybe you could even color code the states into the three possibilities. 1. Both senators vote nay. 2. Both vote aye. 3. Split. Voting patterns would be immediately obvious from a glance. And like someone said earlier it would be extremely cool if you could mouse over the state/box to see the congressman's name.
I like Version B but with only a slash not an "X" through it -- need both the black letters and only a slash for good legibility. I also appreciate your star in grey which represents the non-voting (unrepresented) District of Columbia citizens. Cool! Go forth!
I like option D the best, it is the clearest on the way people voted, but it also makes it easy to tell which senators are democrat and which are repubilican.
In response to the above comment, each state would have the same boxes representing votes as the ones Nate has created here. The states that are too small would have the two votes off to the side. I really think that would be much more interesting to look at.
I think example C is best, the black for nay is much easier to read and I am no fan of the strikethrough display. I also tend to agree with others that there is no need to for distortion on a Senate map, lets just use a map of the USA and let that be it.
This is cute...I like option 2, but I am disconcerted by the way DE looks like a peninsula, MD has no coast, and VA is entirely west of DC. I'd move DE so it sits horizontally below CT and RI, move MD due east of DC, and move VA south of DC. FWIW, I dislike the black background, and I'd go with a single slash rather than a cross.
All the maps show that this was pretty clearly a democrat supported measure, so I tried counting up how many senators crossed party lines on this vote using each map. Of these 4, D was by far the easiest to figure out that 8 republicans (and an independent) voted for the measure and 4 democrats (and an independent voted against it). That was the case even though I started with D, so I already knew the answer when I tried it on the other maps.
I like B, and D is ok. I don't like the others.
It's easiest to determine at a glance who voted and on D, in my opinion- it takes some secondary examination to see which Nay votes are what party, but I'd personally rather have it that way than the other.
The geography is fine. Beyond that, can we see party, can we see vote, can we see when/where individual votes went against party, and can we read state abbrs?
The state names are obscured in A and B.
The party affiliations fade out on D, and to a lesser extent in C.
Best compromise? Probably C. Can you try to use one grey scale for Vacant and Not Voting, and the stronger grey for No? That way, the vote would be readable at a glance, and the party would be as well.
def C, but the vacant and abstaining backgrounds should be the same.
I vote for C.
I initially would have said B, but then I thought about it. The party affiliations are (nearly) stable, so we already kind of know those. It's the votes we want to see. B emphasizes the party affiliations as jd2718 pointed out. So now I'm leaning toward D, although it's a little weird that the nays look more alike than the ayes. Oh, I've got an idea! Make the cross-out line (as well as the text) the party color. That will make it easier to tell Dem nays from Rep nays.
I prefer D over C because black backgrounds are just plain hard on the eyes.
I personally like A and D the best, though reading the commments, the contrast, clarity of crossing party lines, and not making a nay vote seem like an "invalid" option all make D seem stronger. B doesn't seem as distinct as D, and C makes the difference between "yea" and "nay" seem like the only important feature.
I like the idea of making the junior senator in lowercase letters, even though Nate already said it was the one to the bottom/left.
I very very much agree with making NH vertical instead of horizontal, moving VT up one square vertically, and moving NY over one square horizontally. It would also be more geographically correct as far as which states border which in the Northeast.
Both the Senate and the House maps are great! Thanks!
I think you need a poll.
Do NOT use A or B. The X's just aren't visually striking enough. C and D are both good though.
One note is that on this map, in juggling the three considerations you mentioned in the previous post, that you should ignore attempts to preserve the shape of a state. What's more important is to get the borders (or lack thereof) to be as accurate as possible. To that end, Texas should be horizontal, and OR should be vertical (pushing CA down a notch to border AZ). I'm not going to try to tell you what to do with New England, but I'm sure you can come up with something.
Finally, I don't see the point of adding in DC. It doesn't give us information about the votes, and is thus completely superfluous. Please weigh your priorities here, whether you want to make a political statement or if you want to assemble information in a useful manner.
Version D really appeals to me, I think, because it presents the clearest path to differentiating the two sides of a vote. The Aye senators are the most prominent, and the Nay senators are more clearly distinguished, while still having readable state name abbreviations.
I like the third one the best.
keep up the good work Nate!
What looks like Washington DC isn't really DC. It's the space reserved for the Vice Presidential tiebreaking vote.
I like Version C as it provides the most stark contrast between who voted FOR a bill and who voted AGAINST a bill, which is the information that is most important to me and what I would want to be able to decipher at a quick glance. My screen clearly shows all of the detail, so the black squares are not a problem for me, though it may be for others. If this is a big problem, then I would vote for version D, as the grey may be easier to read than the black.
For the Not Voting and Vacant Seats, it happens less often and is usually information that you look to as a deeper analysis into how a vote went after you've calculated the Ayes and Nays. Therefore, less emphasis is needed for these categories.
I like the distorted map. It makes this map unique. I can go to any number of other sites to get a standard geographical map of the US. I come here for stuff that is more based on statistical analyses, so a distorted map seems more appropriate for this site. If this were one of the MSM sites, I would say just do a standard geographic map to make it easily understandable by the masses.
I think Version C is by far the clearest and easiest to read - especially for communicating the voting patterns across party identification.
This is a very exciting new path for the site - good work.
Version D is the cleanest and clearest map.
Version A: You cannot glance at the map and easily see which party and which senators voted for/against the bill.
Version B: Virtually the same as A, and equally as difficult to see at a glance.
Version C: The Black is offensive to the eyes. Also it clearly indicates who voted for and against (and is better than A and B), it is not as clean as D.
Go with D. Please.
You should be consistent in meaning for your colouring, with the same part of each box referring to the Senators party, and the same part referring to their voting intention.
I suggest red/blue/green for the box colour (GOP/Dem/Indy) and white/grey/black for the font (Yea/non-voting/nay). You could maybe add the cross for nays and a single diagonal line for non-voting. Vacants should just be pale.
'D' is superior.
I like the squares. For "aye" I would recommend filled in squares with white letters in the middle, and for "nay" I would recommend white squares with thick blue, red, or green borders as appropriate with black letters in the middle. Great concept.
I vote "C"
D
I prefer Version C, with uppercase letters for the senior senator and lowercase for the junior in each state (MN/mn).
One vote for "C" here - I think it's much cleaner and easier to read than the others. I like it!
D is the best.
The distorted maps are good, I think, because area equals the power of the state, rather than acreage.
I was advocating for C, back in the old days when it was "Alternate #2". Now that you've introduced D, I really really like D.
somewhere- maybe here- I read that the human eye perceives intensity differences much easier than color differences. So D's clear contrast- dark for aye, light for nay- is very effective. Maybe experiment with, if the nay votes look better without the strike through.
C is for cookie. And the best one.
If we're voting, I go for versions "B" and "D".
Whereas the one with black squares is too stark for my taste, and the red on red cannot be easily read. JMHO.
Thanks again, Nate.
Bravo Nate! This will keep me coming back here forever. What a marvelous resource for tracking the actions of our lawmakers.
I liked the first one, and then each version got progressively better. So my vote is version D. The single slashes are much clearer than X's. The red on red in version A is very difficult to make out.
It is amazing how many people asked what they were voting about or how to distinguish senior and junior senator, given that this all clearly explained in the legend.
Complaining about the distortion seems odd too; the point of this schematic has little to do with geography, and the "distortion" accurately depicts the information it intends too.
I would make two small tweaks to version D:
1. The green on gray for independent not voting is hard to pick out; use a more saturated green.
2. The black on gray for vacant is hard to distinguish from the blue on gray for not voting. I would make vacant white with a black box and black lettering.
Thanks again, Nate; this is great.
D is best in my opinion.
Most visible state abbreviations etc.
The "not voting" senator's abbreviations should be a little lighter in colour so they are more visible.
So this is what total geeks do on New Years Day. That having been said, C or D will do.
Happy new Year, nerfherders!
I have to say that I like version A the best but I think that the "strike" should be a thicker white line, not a black line.
Further, I like the map concept! :P
D, while easy to read, I still think I cross-outs, whether an X or a single slash, carries a negative connotation. It suggest that the "Nay" vote is somehow incorrect.
Consider if it were something like Prop 8 was voted in the Senate. While a cross-out by Democrats would be the right vote from the more liberal perspective, a cross-out would suggest that such opposition would be wrong. I don't think the visualization should carry such connotations.
I like D by far the best, but the other three could work with a little tweaking. The problem is almost entirely with the nay votes.
In A, the red on red of the GOP nay votes is completely unreadable for me, and the Dem nays are only slightly better.
In B, the black X in the nays makes the black text very hard to read, but if you tried a different color X that could fix it.
In C, the text in the nays is too dim for me to read without straining, if you could brighten the text that might well fix it.
D has none of those problems. The green on dark gray of the Independent no-votes is tough to read, but that's almost a complete non-issue.
C or D
If everybody would read the whole post, or at least stop to think about whether the Senate is in session, we could all save ourselves some time and trouble. Also, a cartogram by definition does not show land areas in their true proportions.
As they are drawn, D is most readable to me. It might be possible to improve the legibility of the C approach by choosing a different background for nay votes. The big problem with B is a black X on black text. This is not necessary. The text for nay votes could still be white. The background colors for nay votes could also be different than from yea votes. A subtle difference would reinforce the other cues.
Finally, think about how this map will play with the House voting map. You don't want people to have to change conceptual gears when going between these. This is especially so since you may want to use them in pairs, or even feel compelled to make a map showing how both House and Senate voted on an issue by state.
I'm voting for D as my favourite.
I think version C is the easiest to read - the clear contrast between red/blue or black makes it easy to see where aye and nay votes are coming from, and it's easy to tell the color of the font inside black square, although this could be a little better.
Definitely B. I think the colors should be left as is (regardless of aye or nay) unless the Senator did not vote (or, of course, if a seat is not filled). I also think the red-on-red and blue-on-blue is too hard to read, which is why I prefer B. Finally, I would definitely like to see the ability to see the Senator's name when their box is scrolled over.
version b is the easiest on the eyes
1 vote for 'D'.
But I would like to see what B would look like with all white letters and just one slash instead of an X for the nays.
I like #3 or #4 where the ayes and nays are easier to see: the maps will be vary more from vote to vote, whereas when the background color is party identification they will not change much visually. In other words, I don't think the X's (in #1 and #2) stand out enough; the ayes and nays are not immediately visually obvious. My favorite is #4.
Compromise?: Maybe something could be done with cell border colors in red and blue to indicate party membership, and then interior color to indicate vote.
My Idea would be the following.
Do 2 things, either do a regular map, with a stripped theme.
Or just do a seating chart type thing, with these. The distorted map looks bad.
I'd suggest the same with the house.
"B," please, or if not, then "A." "B" is preferred because the red-on-red letters in "A" are difficult to read. In "C," I find the black too heavy, plus it obscures the party ID of the senator in question. The light gray with slashes in "D" are too light -- they look more like abstentions than "no" votes to me. "Yeas" and "nays" should have about the same visual weight; this is accomplished in "B" or "A" but definitely not in "C" or "D."
NO on version C as the BLACK is overwhelming for representing the NAYes
[although it does make design color choice sense in keeping with the grey scaling for vacant & not voting]
maybe try changing BLACK to represent the 'vacant' seats, DARK GRAY for 'not voting' & use light grey for the 'nayes' - then the color of the state seat will show much better & the black will not overwhelm perception ???
otherwise, IMHO version D is the clear winner for perception in representing the AYES while also allowing the one to discern the NAYES -BUT...
in version C the strike out/slash is not a good choice imho - although better than the 'X' out in A & B by a margin
instead of using the '\' or 'X' why not represent the NAYES & No Vote status by introducing an inner circle around the state letters either as a circle inside the square or simply as non-AYES shown by circles [with the shades of grey or whatever] with the abbreviations within ???
it would represent much clearer & sharper the virtual distinction between YES & NO & OTHER vote status - and more easily indicate the distinct differences at a glance [senator is a circle or a square peg]
last, HATE the choice of GREEN to represent the INDs in VT & CT
bad color choice on too many levels...
try using YELLOW [like on your Tipping Point map to the right - or perhaps the proverbial PURPLE... but anything except for GREEN for IND
and definitely introduce a rollover mouse pop-up to show the senator's name for each seat...
D is the most readable in terms of foreground/background colors being all copacetic -- and the double strikeout in A & B is gratuitous anyways.
Exciting stuff.
Of these I like Version B the most. I think that the vacant and non voting should just be the same color though. It may just look better with a single slash than a cross. Version D would be my second choice.
I prefer version A with high-contrast letters in all squares. Version B is my 2nd favorite. Very nice. I like that your "map" has all states visually equal here, and the senior senator is always on the top or the left.
I vote for Version C.
As I stated before, D is far superior to the rest. However, you could improve it by moving the slashes from "nay" votes to "not voting," and give the "not voting" a light gray background. This, I think, would be the clearest and easiest to read.
I find Alternative D to be the easiest to read as far as the most important dynamic property of the map, which is how the senators are voting. And because the sparseness of the slash allows for easy reading of the text underneath, it's not hard to get a visual sweep of how the parties are voting. I find the first alternatives too skewed toward identifying party (quite static), while the black of alternative C makes it difficult to discern the party of the nay voters.
I vote for B. Looking forward to these maps.
I prefer version C.
I'd like version D, but without the slash through the nay votes...the slash adds color, but the background would convey the information fine.
D is far superior, simply because there is less color and complicating details. (My next preference would be C.)
I don't like the cross-outs. They look messy. So 1, 2, 4 are out.
3 is okay, but it could be made simpler.
There need only be 3 background colors for yay, nay and no vote rather than 6 different colors. White, Black, Gray with thin black borders should work.
Use 3 colored letters for 3 party options keeping it same color regardless of yes or no vote. Blue, Red and Yellow would suffice.
VT should not be adjacent to NJ or CT. NY should make contact with CT and MA. This change should be easy to make. Other improvements are possible.
I hate 3. Too much color clashing going on, the black is not appealing.
I agree with zander. The color Black has to be avoided on web images. It's too heavy on the eye. White would do great, although white - like black - may not indicate something negative, or "NO" in this case.
hyh said...
I don't like the cross-outs. They look messy. So 1, 2, 4 are out.
3 is okay, but it could be made simpler....
I agree.
Make it as simple -- less color, less form -- as possible.
Version 4 is by far the easiest to read. Although this is one of those rare instances where a chart might work better than a graph. Your representation for the House works well, but for the Senate, the map is too distorted to be of easy use, and most people will be looking to see how individual Senators voted on an issue. States, in alphabetical order, senior senator first under each one, and that should keep people happy and reasonably unconfused.
I second the recommendation for D with no slashes.
It's a hard, and interesting design problem for a few reasons. Here's how I would state it:
Primary Goal: Show which Senate seat voted yea, nay or abs. for a given vote.
Secondary Goal: Identify Party, geographic and seniority correlations.
So considering "D", I think that the solution of using the most pixels (i.e. the background) to identify yea, nay or abs) is a good choice. I might suggest that you think about making the abstentions the lightest background color; they are probably the least important votes. If they become important for a conversation you could put a black box around them, and keep the color scheme.
I think your seniority rule is good. It might be nice to shade the senior member a little darker than the subsequent junior members. Or shade juniors a bit lighter along with your rule. I think this would aid those who want to scan for extra detail and probably wouldn't hurt those who want to ignore it.
I think your geography map is good enough.
I think your party colors are good, and obviously standard. One caveat, many men are red-green color blind, so this might imply finding another color for independents, (although I have the feeling that green is usually standard there so you may be stuck).
Overall, don't forget that the main purpose of the graph is NOT to identify senate seat parties. It's to show votes and allow users to find correlations. So, don't do A or B, they overemphasize party at the expense of clarity around the vote. C is better, but D is much easier to read than C.
I like them in exactly reverse order - D and C are both much more readable than the others, but D just looks nicer. B is better than A, A has serious readability problems (red on red as mentioned several times previously).
Why is the left South Dakota dyad in gray? Why isn't it blue since the senior senator (Johnson) is a Democrat?
I like C, it's much easier to read.
At first I thought I liked B best; but after reading comments, especially those of SarahLawrenceScott, I think D is best, and it might be even better with the strikethrough line colored to match the party color. I'm one of those who has a negative visual reaction to the bright black in C.
Nate, you are wonderful and this is great.
I definitely think D
D is (to me) the most elegant of the four; I hope you choose this one or another version closely approximating it. And, if feasible, I liked the idea -- put forward in an earlier comment -- of having a small window open up when the cursor is positioned atop one of the squares to show which legislator the square represents. But if not, the senior-senator-takes-left-most/top-most-square approach is easy enough to follow.
Version C is best.
Version C is the best - it looks the least messy, and is easiest to read straight off.
Is 538.com going to do 'Senate rankings'? I'm sure that a Nate Silver approach to the matter, with a carefully built model, would be better than the opposition on the field.
Version A is best, I think.
I like C then A best.
I believe that D is the preferred option.
It is most pleasing on the eye scanning left to right shows voting clearly, but does less to obscure the abbreviations than X mark.
One way to test would be to flash options in front of people for brief time and see how much info they absorb from each.
Of these options, D is by far the best, though I might propose a hybrid.
B is generally my favourite, but it is hard to distinguish the colour on a grey block when there are only a few of them, as in the case in this model. B might become my favourite if you used black for not-voting.
D is very clear to read and B might also be improved if you used the slash instead of the X to indicate a nay vote.
Keep up the awesome work!
Nate, can I make a suggestion? You could inverse colors for a nay vote so we could have boxes free of the ugly "x". So a DNC senator voting nay would have a WHITE box with BLUE letters for his/her state's code and a GOP senator would have RED letters and the same WHITEnbox. Not voting would stay the same.
Apart from that, I find the geographic adjustment appropriate (New England: VT-NH-ME vertical, MA underneath horizontally).
Finally, I agree that black is better than grey for "no vote".
I thought that the House map was impeccable. I like the layout here, but I have some readability issues.
I think that you should pick a more contrasting color for independents so they don't appear to be Republicans to color-blind readers. I would suggest yellow or a deep, high-contrast purple.
Also, I think that changing the text instead of the background color to indicate the party of a no-vote is a bit difficult to read. Perhaps you could keep the black text and instead give a light tint to the background color to indicate a no vote. Alternatively, you could use a different symbol, such as a circle or a triangle.
Remember that at least 4% and probably closer to 6% of your readers are color-blind.
I commented before I realized that there were four versions.
I think that I prefer C. The no-vote sticks out very well against the yea and nay votes. Perhaps you could do a very light color tint to help indicate the part of the no-vote.
And again, green is not a good color for the independents.
Version #2 is by far the best - the nay senators are much more clearly distinct from the aye senators and it therefore is a more useful map.
Option A is more pleasing to the eye ... makes me less sea sick - and knowing how hard it is to be geographically correct but SD and ND do border MN .... it kept popping up at me when I saw SD south of MN and distorted my opinion ... but this is a neat idea and A is great ...
I would vote for B. But I wouldn't complain if C or D were used.
A is unreadable.
My vote would be overwhelmingly for D. Very easy to tell who voted for, and who voted against the bill.
My only suggestion would be to change the color of the "vacant" seats to be white with no slash. It was very difficult to separate non-voting Dems from vacant seats. And on a controversial bill I would love to know who didn't vote.
Keep up the good work. Love the site
My vote is for Version B. The text is cleaner and I like the complete X for a no vote. Visually, I don't like the color contrast of C, and I'm not sure of the reason for the strike-throughs on D since you also use grey to color them differently.
The thing to keep in mind moving forward is that there (hopefully) won't be the need to differentiate "vacant" with it's own color code. I can't see these vacancies lasting much further than the month of February, regardless of how much Colman and Blagojevich might kick and scream along the way.
I vote for Butch's suggestion at the top of the comments. I don't see why you need to use this distorted map.
Nate, I think Version D is the best. It's the only one that has high contrast for all vote/party combinations... and the dark background vs. light background makes it far easier to look at the map and see which party generally supported the legislation or did not support it.
Everyone stayed on topic, and didn't try to guess what the 'theoretical' vote was about? I guess the rest of you are less 'easily distracted' than I am.
Looks like McCain voted for it.. Lieberman against, siding with the Republicans. Maybe a vote on condemning Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo?
Suggestion, use the color scheme from Version B, but the slashes from Version D. The slash line might need a slightly higher weight to it.
I vote for D. This version is the best at highlighting the vote, not the party. A and B seem to first pivot on showing the party affiliation, then your brain needs to shift to identify the vote. Version D is the opposite pivot, and i think best accomplishes the goal of showing how the vote came down.
Also, regarding the VP box: I also assumed that this was a way to show the location of our US capital. Perhaps the box could have "VP" vs. a star.
Nate:
I think there may be some unintended bias from the situation reflected in the hypothetical maps. Can you do either randomized ones or the reverse of what you've got (i.e. a situation where the Republicans are heavily for something and the Democrats are against it?)
Thanks!
Mike
@Wayward Son
I sat there for a good long time trying to figure out what vote that could possibly be. The question is, what vote splits McCain from Lieberman each opposing their respective parties, while losing Tester, keeping Landrieu, and picking up Voinavich.
The closest I came up with is a resolution allowing a bailout of unionized card-showing Iraqi contractors who are out of work due to closing down Abu Ghraib.
D, most legible and least clutter.
Like the proportionate visual, reminds me of BBC election map alternative before November. Gives one a better idea of true population.
Someone above had a suggestion about clarity, and the rollover with names was a nice idea. Recommend anything that will simplify and elucidate.
What is it assumed that Lieberman would vote no on anything progressive? Aside from the military, he appears to be sound on quite a few issues.
I'm changing my vote from C to D... only without the line through each of the dissenters' boxes. The light gray would be indicator enough as to who voted 'nay' on a piece of legislation while still allowing people to see who has crossed party lines. The colored 'aye' votes pop out and, once again, allow people to see that, say, Sen. Specter of PA crossed lines on this legislation.
As an added bonus--and the feature that makes "D" superior to "C" is that the gray matches the site more and would help keep a cleaner image to the distorted maps.
I like rollover information and junior senators being identified with lowercase state abbreviations.
One question, however: do you intend to double up this map on REALLY important measures (eg. healthcare, stimulus) where achieving the 60 votes for cloture would be a factor? This may prove as important as anything else as we head into a new Congress, recalling the divided houses of LBJ's time where the most southern senators voted to end debate then voted 'nay' on the bill. Just a thought...
For me, hands-down, version D is the cleanest (visually), and most easily digested and understood.
A central problem to overcome any time RED is used in one of these maps is that we are hard-wired to be drawn to it, thus it tends to overwhelm all the other colors. (For example, studies show that young children will always gravitate towards red toys).
In versions A and B, our eyes are drawn to the red boxes -- both Yea and Nay -- at the expense of all the other information.
Version D mitigates this issue the best by eliminating the red-field boxes for the Nay votes (the red state name abbreviations aren't nearly as distracting).
This version also does a good job of allowing the eyes to pick out and settle on the Yea votes, while still making it easy to find the Nays. As well, the Nay votes with diagonal 'strike' are easier to read than those in v. A and B that use a 'double strike' ("X").
Versions A and B (hardly much difference) both suffer from a competition of visual information (and the loser is our eyes and our brains). Similarly, Version C's black-field boxes are too distracting.
Please, Nate, go with D.
I vote C. It seems the easiest to read.
Nate --- why not just put the boxes on top of a normal map of the USA? That would be much easier to read.
D here
You know, Nate, you're usually so scientific in your approach that I'm surprised you've solicited all this feedback on these versions without stopping to ask what it is we're voting on. I mean, it's not like you're asking your readers to vote on the prettiest necktie.
A good graph needs to do a few very specific things well. And the measure of all these things must be based on how the graph is processed and understood by its consumers.
I bet you'd find it pretty interesting (and pretty easy) to design a brief test of readers' abilities to glean the desired information -- quickly and accurately -- from these various graphs. Then, you'd know which is the best.
My vote is for D (for reasons stated in an earlier comment), but I'd be very happy to take part in such a test and to see if I'm right about this.
I like version A because it's less jarring visually. But it depends on what you're trying to emphasize. If it's the "Nay" votes, then C is where it's at. If it's the "Aye" votes, then D. But for all around informative-ness, I stick with A.
And I'm with the people who prefer the distorted map for this purpose because it equalizes things. Size does matter...in maps too.
All in all, I say that all versions are a job well-done! And much needed.
Please don't go with C. The black just doesn't work on the eyes. D is probably best, followed by B. A would work as well.
I vote for D, because it is the most useful (aye-nay pops out immediately instead of rep-dem) and the most elegant (and don't underestimate elegance - for many successful companies, including Google, Apple, and Facebook, visual elegance has been an important part of their success). C, while useful like D, is rather garish.
I would like to also vote for alt-text (or whatever) pop-ups for senators' names - because some of us amateurs don't have all the senior and junior senators memorized yet :) and that would be extraordinarily useful to us if we're looking to see how a particular person voted (e.g. "which state is Harry Reid from again?") - and also might help us learn their names.
The uppercase/lowercase for senior/junior senators does not strike me as very important, only mildly interesting, but it would be an easy change, so I vote for that too.
I also wanted to mention again the suggestion of using borders around the boxes. I don't know what kind of code you're using to create these graphs, but if creating colored borders is possible (and it seems like it would be), that would give you another variable to play with. I like the idea of leaving the borders permanently red or blue (or green or whatever) to indicate party, and changing the interior background color to indicate vote. Then the text color could always be high-contrast for readability but not mean anything in and of itself. Which I think would be an improvement over having to strain to see if the text is dark red or dark blue or whatever.
I would also recommend taking into account the suggestion about red-green colorblindness. Maybe you're locked into green because it's standard, but if not, that's something to think about. I'm not color-blind, but I know some people who are, and it's probably more common than we realize.
A and B don't have enough visual distinction between an Aye and a Nay (the X isn't cutting it at a quick glance). A and B are great to get an idea of the proportions of the party makeup of the Senate but for a given vote, not so much. C is just painful to look at with the black.
D is great. It provides the most useful information at a glance. Squint your eyes so that it all blurs together and you can still see at a glance, the approximate proportion of Aye and Nay votes between parties and within parties.
In D the slashes over the Nay votes are completely unnecessary, and even distracting. The color alone is plenty sufficient to indicate the Nay vote and removing the slash will make the state abbreviation and party affiliation more legible.
The darker text in the Not Voting boxes isn't high enough in contrast with the background to be effective. Perhaps you could use a lighter red/blue/green in the Not Voting squares to up the contrast a bit.
I think SC and GA (and VT and NH for that matter) should be vertical like CO and UT. This is for purely aesthetic reasons, however. I am from SC if that makes any difference though.
Version D is by far the most elegant representation of a single vote.
For a permanent map of the senate (say on the right sidebar), Versions A or B would be fine.
version D is by far best if you take the slashes out it would be the perfect one
B is the only one that really works for me.
In the hypothetical vote, only B makes it immediately obvious that the vast majority of Republicans voted "nay," and the majority of Democrats "aye." The red and blue immediately indicate Repub. and Dem., and should be kept. For me the point of the chart is figured out how each party would vote on a particular bill.
Everyone seems to like D, but for me, it takes too long to figure out which member of which party voted "nay," what with the tiny obscured letters and all.
The one with the black (version C) is the best.
How about something simple and intuitive, like this?
Tell me what you think. :-)
Perhaps the fourth option with a color border around the greyed boxes for the nay votes? I really don't see a strong inherent difference in the first two options. And the third is nice, but can be difficult depending on the monitor.
I know lots of people like to play with maps to illustrate all kinds of political phenomena these days, but it seems to me that many of these maps simply confuse things.
A map or a figure or a table should be easy to decipher. These maps (including your earlier House maps) are not.
A simple table by region would do much the same, and make more sense.
I think the contrasting colors of Version C are the best.
I agree with Intrpion. I understood the results of version C most quickly - for some reason I found black easier to process than the x or the /.
C
Version D is most legible at a glance; I especially like how the party affiliations of the ayes pop out, and the cohesion of the nays. In displaying voting tallies, it's useful to see regions of yays and nays, and then have the option (perhaps by hovering one's mouse over a particular seat or state) of finding more detailed information.
Pssst said...
your example is a very nice revision & is reader friendly...
EXCEPT for the overly bold BLACK 'X' to strike out the NAYES as well as the reliance on GREEN for INDs [try YELLOW ?]
Instead of striking out the NAYES, could you exchange the square boxes for circles perhaps to indicate all the NO & Not Voting & Vacant seats - or use shades of gray with light gray for NAY, med gray for Not Voting & BLack/dark gray for Vacant seats ???
just some ideas to help make your excellent map even better for visual acuity [the 'X's have gotta go imho]
To follow up on PSSST's excellent example linked in the comment above @ 7:36 PM...
NATE, how about using your own 'PRE-ELECTION PROJECTION' map & cartogram combo above on the right side of the page as a template...
as PSSST suggests & shows graphically, use the geographic USA map as a background
then over lay each state with 2 squares [or circles] as you did for NE & ME to represent the senate seats + 1 for DC/VP tie-breaker
AYE - squares of dark RED & BLUE & YELLOW [not green]for INDs within the borders of each state
NAY - circles [or squares] of light red & pale blue & pale yellow for INDs
NOT VOTING - circles [or squares] of light red or pale blue with cross hatching
VACANT - circles [or squares] of empty or light gray
remember, sometimes a NAY vote can really be an AYE or affirmative
and the eye can differentiate between SQUARES [for AYE] & CIRCLES [for NAY, Not Voting & Vacant] relatively easier than between all squares
the info is transmitted better through 2 various shapes to represent different votes non-judgementally - then the collors alone transmit the second level of info
plus have the roll-over pop-ups to ID each senator by name & party as well
this combo resolves all the pertinent details that the viewer requires
I like C, with bolder typeface. And I like the distortion, because otherwise you can't see what the east coast is doing.
Thanks for the great feedback, DCM! I agree that the X's were too bold -- I've slimmed them down so it's easier to see the color underneath. I've also changed the independents from green to yellow, as you suggested -- makes it easier to distinguish them from the Dems.
The reason I prefer to use X's instead of circles for the 'nay' votes is that 'X' is an intuitive symbol for 'no'... The goal for any mapmaker should be to make the map as self-explanatory as possible, hence the 'X' = no. Ideally, readers should be able to understand a map without even looking at the key.
Nate's tries are admirable, but IMHO they are far too busy and complex for the relatively small amount of data being shown. I think the reason they're so busy is that he has to put the state abbreviations inside every box, and the reason he has to have the abbreviations is that he isn't using a geographic map as a base. By using a geographic base, I was able to remove all the text from the map and make it way more simple than Nate's versions.
Click here to see my new version of the map.
Enjoy :-)
I think I like version D, it's a good visual overview of how much D and R support a bill got without the excessive colorization of C. That said, I certainly hope to see some version of this quick glance map in action - it's great!
PSSST
your new map is better than any of Nate's versions so far.
the yellow for IND works much better than green - especially for anyone who is color-blind !
and by using the map as background, it is obvious what state the votes were cast in on any size monitor or printout as compared to trying to discern the name of the state in Nate's distorted cartogram with abbreviations in the squares
now IF the state name didn't matter [but it does], then Nate's models would be adequate - but as is they fail
Of the four, I vote for version C. Any version of a strikeout (the Xs or slashes) impedes legibility. The black background for nays provides stark contrast between Ayes and Nays at the cost of the visual impact of the party affiliations. It depends on what you want to emphasize, the vote or the affiliation. Would it be possible to highlight the Aye votes by outlining them? Or do a light shadow on the Nays? Or drop the saturation to 50% on the Nays? I guess what I'm getting at is, I would try to preserve the red/blue scheme and find an alternate way to indicate Y/N.
I like the distortion - it conveys relative importance better than a geographical representation. But instead of white space around each state, a black border would stand out more against the white page background.
I also like the color coding (red/blue), and the left/top = senior is fine as well. But the yea/nay coding needs work. The thin line X and black state abbreviation works in contrast to the Republican red, but is tough to see against the Democrat blue.
Maybe dark red or blue background with white text for Yea votes, and light red or blue with black text for Nay votes.
Nate, of the maps, I prefer 3, although 4 would be much better if you removed the strikeouts, as they do too much to obscure the letters in the squares. Actually, the more I look at 4, the better it seems if you eliminate the strikethroughs. One suggestion: if you could, put up a link to a larger image for those who might find it hard to read/see. Keep up the good work!
Thanks DCM! I hope Nate sees it. I'd be happy to help him set it up, if he lacks the graphics skills.
"D" - I agree with Pas, above.
1. I like the square coloring on D because it makes the Aye votes stand out the most. My biggest concern is the vote, not the party affiliation.
2. I still struggle with the colors on gray for Nay votes, but that may because I am partially colorblind.
3. I do not think you need the fourth set of Vacant votes that D largely leaves alone.
Option D
is the easiest to quickly visually distinguish between aye/nay and between red/blue/green at a glance, as well as easiest on the eyes in terms of providing contrast and information with the least amount of visual noise.
Love graphic map. Initially liked B and switched to D for greater understanding of other aspects of the vote. I prefer the "x"s in B to the strikes in D. Please don't use a geographic map, truly find this one more amusing...if you feel obliged (for some strange reason) to use the geo map, then give us others a viewing option so we can change to blocks only! Lovin' all you do Nate.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區
Post a Comment