Well, that was fun. After seeing some good roundups of election night graphics and a few personal tours by the designers themselves (such as Khoi Vinh of the New York Times and Nathan Borror of the Lawrence Journal-World) I thought I’d share my own rundown of what we did at Minnesota Public Radio for election night results.

First off, the big deal was the special election block on the homepage, which included a live map of the governor’s race and a balance of power for both national and state houses, both of which were updating behind the scenes without having to refresh the page.

The other big thing was the interactive results map, which allows you to see up-to-the-minute results without having to refresh, drill down to specific counties and districts, and even switch the view of the map to see the geographic strengths and weaknesses of specific parties. Notice how I didn’t have to include a screenshot of those? That’s because there’s permalinking to specific zooms and views. There’s also switching back and forth from Flash to HTML versions of the results because of that fact. Here’s a screenshot anyway:

I personally don’t think there’s nothing terribly amazing about our basic results pages, except for the fact that I consider them to be fairly readable, digestible, don’t look like pre-packaged crap from an outside supplier, and just the fact that there are a lot of pages, which allows you to look at however general or specific you want to be.

Another interesting part of our election results was the fact that we gave them to anyone else who wanted them, through our election results widget. Places who used it ranged from personal sites to political bloggers to small town papers to political parties themselves, and the customization ranged anywhere from not having to do much to a fantastic super-customized approach. There were even times were you could get our results faster from somewhere other than our own site, due to our traffic load. This may seem strange, but I think that’s kind of an awesome public service.

In general the night went rather smooth, even while having almost 10x the usual amount of traffic. The data retrieval from the Secretary of State slowed up a bit later in the evening due to a similar kind of media crunch on their end, but data still eked out along the way. I’d love to hear any comments or criticism on anything you see on the site or in the interactive maps, because hey, I hear this kind of thing is happening again in a few years.

In reading this article entitled “Newspaper.com visitors up by nearly a third, NAA says”, I didn’t realize that “newspaper.com visitors” was just a way of saying “online newspaper visitors” in a general sense, so I was quite surprised when I got to the real newspaper.com.

At the site, it is not a newspaper conglomerate such as News Corp, Gannett or Knight-Ridder, but instead some fantastic screenshots of “the world’s first international multimedia online newspaper, News In Motion“, which existed from 1993-1996 and was eventually usurped by the web. My guess is that the reason the site is still around is because the domain name is worth a pretty penny, but it’s still nice to see some insight into some older online news thinking with the splash page, ISSN number, and button navigation.

Recently someone at work printed an article from our site (like this one, for example) and wondered where the images were.

If you print it (or save some trees and just look at a print preview to see what you would get), you will notice that the presentation is largely different from what you get on the web. It is using print styles in the CSS to hide various things, such as the navigation, sidebars, and photos. It also displays a different, more minimal footer. What this printer-ized version tells you is where it came from, how to contact them, and the text of the story.

One argument for not displaying the photos is based on why people print out web pages: simple reading, reference, filing, or forwarding. Another argument is printer ink: The majority of people who tested this site mentioned that the reason they choose “printer-friendly” or text-only versions of a page was so that the images would not print. Why? The cost of printer ink. Printer ink costs more per drop than vintage Dom Perignon, so that’s quite understandable.

One stated argument for printing the photos is that, since this is a news story, they are also “telling the story” and thus should be preserved.

I really don’t know that there is one true answer to this, but I’m interested in your opinion on the matter, or perhaps some more arguments for and against printing photos from a web page. What do you think?