> A county like San Francisco or New York, which packs thousands of residents into a small area, now stands out with an intense color saturation, drawing the eye immediately to where the people actually are. Conversely, a vast county with a sparse population adopts a lighter tone, accurately reflecting its lower density without the distraction of an oversized area.
That sounds great, but this colour scheme doesn't seem to be what was actually used on the map.
If I know anything about the US population density, the gradient used is dark blue -> light blue -> light pink -> red, so the "vast counties with sparse population" actually show up as saturated as the dense urban ones.
The most visually attractive areas on that map are the large dark blue areas of West Texas and the Rockies, the opposite of the intention described in the text.
I would recommend using a single colour gradient instead.
That sounds great, but this colour scheme doesn't seem to be what was actually used on the map.
If I know anything about the US population density, the gradient used is dark blue -> light blue -> light pink -> red, so the "vast counties with sparse population" actually show up as saturated as the dense urban ones.
The most visually attractive areas on that map are the large dark blue areas of West Texas and the Rockies, the opposite of the intention described in the text.
I would recommend using a single colour gradient instead.