tonestertm wrote: I understand that the TLAs are placed at, essentially, the centroid of the given region. The NWR location was the first thing that threw me, but I understand why it's where it is.

I'd like to suggest, for readability, that "GLR" be scooted down just a bit, so that it sits entirely over color, rather than having coastline underneath.

I'd like to suggest that "SER" be scooted up just a bit, for aesthetics.

In both cases, I think it's pretty clear that the " land extensions" belong to the given region.

Not much we can do about NER, I'm afraid, but the coastline there does interfere with readability, as well.

The above are assuming that this won't play some sort of havoc with the image map - I didn't look to see how this image was constructed.

The directly adjacent colors for SWR and SCR are quite similar, no?

Even more minor ticky-tack: the colors for SER and MAR could maybe be lightened a little, to provide better contrast with the letters? These colors are significantly more saturated than the original ones.

ldriveskier wrote: I would suggest switching SCR with SER to put the blue between the two "orange"s. Also, maybe switch GLR with NOR or NER, since NOR/NER are similar colors.

ldriveskier wrote:

Kartografer wrote:OK, muted and split

Better, thanks.

I don't supposed you could define the lines between the states better than that light grey? Maybe a darker grey like the current map?

tonestertm wrote: Then, of course, I want to go to matching the regions' colors on the grid below, at least in the first column, but that gets wacky, and results in some pretty bright coloring under text....

Finally, I wonder if the landing pages for each region should include the TLAs....