Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

portent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#51

Post by jack-r-abbit »

batista wrote: post #47
jack-r-abbit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You kind of lost me when you started telling me that I should consider useless the same things you consider useless. I'm sorry I openly questioned the mismatch. I'm just glad that the OP gave an actual answer... rather than just ridicule me.

> You kind of lost me when you started telling me that I should consider useless the same things you consider useless. Well, other people sometimes are in the right on telling you to consider useless what they consider useless. For example, if someone tells you to consider "creationism" useless, they would be right. It's not like everything is a matter of personal choice --or that they just say it to impose their arb…

> And doesn't he being that kind make you regret suggesting people drop his article for a trivial typo?

If I had actually suggested that people not read the article then, yes, I would regret that. Fortunately, I did not do that. Instead I said why I did not read the article. Perhaps you find that distinction trivial. That is fine. But I do not.

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#52

Post by saraid216 »

replicatorblog wrote: post #37

Maybe instead of bashing infographics designers would benefit from figuring out why they are so popular? This "Cult of Tufte" stuff is kind of grating. Minard's map showing Napoleon's march into Moscow is a great example. It is an elegant chart that shows 6 key bits of information (# of troops, location, direction, temp, time, attrition), but it's a bore to look at. It might be the greatest piece of info design ever,…

Flashy > Informative?

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#53

Post by saraid216 »

kevinpet wrote: post #34

Title makes it sound like he's going to delineate the difference between "infographic" and "non-infographic", but it seems to run into the "real Christians" problem where anything he doesn't like "isn't an infographic". Apparently it's categorically impossible for an infographic to be less than fantastic, which is an odd definition of infographic.

He delineates it fine, I thought. The quality goes down as you get further along--Number 11 says nothing, for instance--but the 1-4 are perfectly valid.

Does your "infographic" add clarity? If no, it's not an infographic. Does your "infographic" actually use data? If no, it's not an infographic. Does your "infographic" communicate more compactly than a paragraph or a spreadsheet? If no, it's not an infographic. Does your "infographic" tell a story or make an argument? If no, it's not an infographic.

Basically, infographics are yet another one of those academic things that got subverted by marketers in service of the masses. Now that they have a different audience, it's a lot harder for them to hold onto their original identity of "a piece of tri-fold cardboard at the science fair".

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#54

Post by tptacek »

lloeki wrote: post #49
tptacek wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not pretend there's more controversy here than there really is. If anything, the point he's making is too banal. Almost the whole of _The Visual Display of Quantitative Information_ argues against the style of visualization this post argues against. Virtually all infographics are indeed terrible visualizations of information.

> Virtually all infographics are indeed terrible visualizations of information. I do not agree. I've seen quite a bunch that – although obviously not a definitive source of information – give a good sense of perspective. Here's one [0] that came back to mind. [0] http://mozy.com/blog/misc/how-much-is-a-petabyte/

One of the most recurrent metrics in Tufte's books is "density". Another is "comparisons on multiple axes" (I'm going from memory, I think he had a more technical term). How do you think this particular graphic does?

Graphics like this seem more like posters promoting an idea than tools for understanding complex data.

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#55

Post by lloeki »

Locke1689 wrote: post #50
lloeki wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Virtually all infographics are indeed terrible visualizations of information. I do not agree. I've seen quite a bunch that – although obviously not a definitive source of information – give a good sense of perspective. Here's one [0] that came back to mind. [0] http://mozy.com/blog/misc/how-much-is-a-petabyte/

Really? Most of that chart is just big text. Big text is not an infographic. I would say the most interesting one I've come across recently is http://xkcd.com/radiation/ .

An infographic is not a chart. e.g [0] has a lot of text.

[0] http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#56

Post by tptacek »

Locke1689 wrote: post #50
lloeki wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Virtually all infographics are indeed terrible visualizations of information. I do not agree. I've seen quite a bunch that – although obviously not a definitive source of information – give a good sense of perspective. Here's one [0] that came back to mind. [0] http://mozy.com/blog/misc/how-much-is-a-petabyte/

Really? Most of that chart is just big text. Big text is not an infographic. I would say the most interesting one I've come across recently is http://xkcd.com/radiation/ .

Is that a particularly effective graphic? Look at how the green doses transition to the orange ones (with a legend "all green doses combined" corresponding to an irregular number of orange boxes), and then look at the transition from orange to yellow; are all the orange doses equivalent to 50sv, or are all the orange doses equivalent to one box?

I agree that the XKCD "radiation" chart is an instance where an XKCD-style comic does a better job of explaining something than an equivalent well-written paragraph. But I don't agree that it's a particularly great visualization.

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#57

Post by a5seo »

tptacek wrote: post #40
kevinpet wrote: post #34

Title makes it sound like he's going to delineate the difference between "infographic" and "non-infographic", but it seems to run into the "real Christians" problem where anything he doesn't like "isn't an infographic". Apparently it's categorically impossible for an infographic to be less than fantastic, which is an odd definition of infographic.

Let's not pretend there's more controversy here than there really is. If anything, the point he's making is too banal. Almost the whole of _The Visual Display of Quantitative Information_ argues against the style of visualization this post argues against. Virtually all infographics are indeed terrible visualizations of information.

That may be true, but Portent is an SEO firm and Ian is addressing a certain type of braindead SEO who jumped on the infographics bandwagon as a link building strategy.

They tend to know not, nor care, a thing about visual design of quantitative information. They think they're executing a strategy because their fingers are moving on the keyboard.

Then they don't get results and wonder why. The point is to tell them they aren't even in the right ballpark.

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#58

Post by theycallmemorty »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #11

I agree completely but unfortunately I doubt people will do them right until they stop attracting eyeballs. To the well informed, bad info graphics are a plague on the web. To my sister's teenage friends and my mother's circle of friends they're "oh cool, I don't have to read!". Self respecting graphic designers won't create these awful "info graphics" but anyone who's looking to attract some eyeballs in the hopes of…

> I agree completely but unfortunately I doubt people will do them right until they stop attracting eyeballs.

The problem is you can't know if they're worth your time until you actually spend the time to look at them.

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#59

Post by tptacek »

lloeki wrote: post #55
Locke1689 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Most of that chart is just big text. Big text is not an infographic. I would say the most interesting one I've come across recently is http://xkcd.com/radiation/ .

An infographic is not a chart. e.g [0] has a lot of text. [0] http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...

Notice how that graphic uses graphics primarily to illustrate, and often uses illustration in lieu of words; to fully communicate the same ideas in prose you might need many paragraphs. Notice how it uses color exclusively as a subtle callout. Notice how the color choice highlights effectively but doesn't draw a blinding neon sign.

By contrast, the infographic you like uses illustrations incorrectly; for instance, isn't it confusing the area and radius of circles? Notice how it uses multiple pictures each drawing a single comparison on a single axis. Think about how many words the same comparison takes in prose (not hard, because all those words are included in the infographic in gigantic type above the illustration, often in radioactive neon green).

--- Also: note that this [unfavorable] comparison is against a relatively weak example of explanatory illustration --- the best examples in _VDQA_ are way, way better than these NYT examples, which are a bit chartjunky themselves. If there's a good critique to be leveled at E.T., I think it may be that he tends to be overly favorable to friends, students, and, most importantly, people who share the same aesthetic sense that he does: simple line drawing style, low-saturation colors, arts & letters themes. Look at that "Game of Life" illustration, for instance; ouch.

Look at the "airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow" by, I believe, one of his students --- a truly excellent, effective example of an information graphic done in E.T.'s favored style [literally, with E.T.'s favorite palette]:

http://style.org/strouhalflight/

Re: Your infographic isn't an infographic. It's just a crappy graphic.

#60

Post by laconian »

dfxm12 wrote: post #2

My biggest beef with infographics is that they are almost always a static image. This is 2012. Why not make something interactive? It could help address several of the author's points as well.

I don't think they care so much about communicating facts as much as they care about ROI from their SEO investment. If static images work at getting page views from gullible people, then why change?
Post reply on HN