If you want a current example of the value of infographics look at this.
Based on structured content, simple visuals and intelligent interaction it delivers its explanation effectively.
An explanation of ranked-choice voting by Kevin Schaul, Star Tribune
It goes back to (my) first principles: Done well, infographic design clarifies, explains, reveals or adds meaning. As well as being clear, relevant, engaging, useful, original, elegant. Lovely.
As 2013 starts I thought I’d pull together some of the best things that I’ve said, seen, heard and learnt in 2012.
Starting with a definition of infographics I still stand by my first tweet back in March that stemmed from an exercise I created for some students: The INFO gives the GRAPHIC its form. Otherwise the ‘graphic’ is most likely acting as an illustration.
In the same vein – with the goal of creating better infographics – I’ve been encouraging anyone designing them to make sure they can answer yes to two key questions: does the graphic tell a story? and is that the same story that you set out to tell?
What has emerged strongly this year are increasingly sophisticated interactive page designs and delivery (examples under my tower graphic comment further on). However the stark simplicity but instant clarity of a recent collection of animated gifs brilliantly demonstrates the power of visuals to explain things, another fundamental that underpins great graphics regardless of layers of fancy interaction or not. Yes, some are a little clunky, but they’re really effective.
A couple of other clunky-but-effective examples that crossed my radar this year show an application of interaction that I think is underused: interaction with the goal of aiding understanding. Two examples of this ‘learning by having a go’ are here, by SolutionRealm and Tom MacWright. Click on the images to have a go.
As for formats, tower graphics seem to be thankfully on the decline. Either injecting subject matter that suits the format or playing to the storytelling strengths of interactivity a new, much more engaging breed of tower graphic is emerging. Two good examples I’ve seen are featured below, from the BBC and Angela Morelli. Click on them to go to the originals.
I still love motion graphics when they’re done well. This one about the Titanic below – another BBC production – is a good example:
And if you just want one piece of guidance as to the key to motion graphics’ success I’d offer up the BBC’s Jonathan Spencer and Mark Edwards comment at the Information Design Association: The time you have to view a graphic is the key constraint for TV data viz.
Data journalism is all around us (you can find links and resources I recommend here). By way of an example, this was a simple piece of data journalism I did this year during the Olympics – click images to see full graphics – that in contrast to endless medal tables threw up some interesting and original observations, two good reasons to keep encouraging and helping journalists and designers to engage more with data.
A theme that’s close to my heart that came out of the Information Design Association’s conference was design with a cause. Later in the year this was then well illustrated by Spinifex working with the Australian Bureau of Statistics to project interactive data onto buildings to promote the release of Census data. (A continuation of one of my all time favourite pieces of work).
Some good reading will be found on two blogs that have emerged in 2012 about the design decisions behind some of the best work we’ve seen – NYT and NatGeo – and a third, The Why Axis, promises to reveal more of the same too.
After another year is done I still think the New York Times are consistently the best when measured against my criteria: clear, relevant, engaging, useful, original, elegant. And you can enjoy a review of 2012 as illustrated by their graphics.
Happy New Year, see you in 2013!
:)
I get at least two enquiries a month to create these* so it’s time to put down my thoughts about them.
In a nutshell remember tower graphics are a piece of journalism as much as they are a piece of design, and with that comes a set of standards.
From TechCrunch
Infographics v editorial design & illustration
If we’re talking semantics, tower graphics are not infographics, rather editorial design, heavy on illustration.
If we’re talking plain english, what infografistas do better than editorial designers and illustrators is to grapple with information. It is this which leads them to a graphic, or several, that best show(s) visually what the information is saying.
What editorial designers and illustrators do better than infografistas is to create designs that can hold together all the elements of a whole page or screen, some, all or none of which can be an infographic.
The two fields are not mutually exclusive, tower graphics would benefit from both, but on the whole they fall between the two, erring on the side of style with little regard to substance.
An example from the other end of the spectrum that showcases what can result from bringing together people from both areas of expertise would be Eureka and Bloomberg Business Week. These are my current favourite examples of editorial design that seamlessly integrate journalism, infographics and illustration. I can stop worrying about semantics and just enjoy a good read.
Pros and cons
(See also Max Gadney’s good blog on them here.)
Tower graphics are good for going viral. They’re friendly and engaging. Their style is ‘of the moment’. Everyone wants one.
Tower graphics are bad for their treatment of information. See the one from earlier this week on Pinterest as a case in point. For starters the three bar charts centrally are all incorrect which leads you on to question the integrity of the whole thing. And with that many sources cited – listed at the bottom – are the figures they compare really comparable?
A form of journalism
I don’t mean to single out the above Pinterest tower graphic, and I don’t need to. Those points apply to the majority of tower graphics I’ve ever seen. But (I get the impression) tower graphics are by and large generated as a piece of visual collateral, by designers with no analysts or journos involved. Hence the ‘con’ above: the quality of journalism is poor.
Scrolling infographics
A tower graphic is distinct from a deep infographic that plays to the scrolling nature of a browser to tell it’s story better. A nice recent example being the BBC’s Ocean trench.
Tower graphics: Let’s make them better
*I get at least two enquiries a month to create these, and being of a purer infographic persuasion they are not really my cup of tea. If there is a talented illustrator or editorial designer out there who’d like this kind of work please get in touch. If you’re good with numbers so much the better. If not, I’m happy to collaborate on that bit.
Look at the six thumbnail sketches down the left hand side: I really like the use of visuals here to draw attention to where the stories are. They serve to guide the reader through an otherwise complicated and confusing landscape.
This bit of work…
By Sons&co for Mahi Foreign Exchange
…reminded me of this bit of work:
Dimensions, a set of experimental prototypes by BERG for the BBC
They’re both great for bringing things that are hard to get your head around to a more familiar level.
This combines the best of all the best things that are happening in the industry at the moment. It’s human, interactive, tells a story, uses motion graphics, has something to share at the end of it.
Of course it also ticks all the boxes that make it good in my book: clear, relevant, engaging, useful, original, elegant.
Inevitably there are bits I’d change, notably around how they deal with some of the numbers, but overall: love it.
(From Australian Bureau of Statistics but no clue as to who designed/developed it).
This title captures so perfectly a current theme in the ever more data driven infographic-land that I haven’t changed it. It’s lifted from a recent blog post from Juice Analytics that caught my eye a couple of weeks back.
Whether a data graphic is more ‘wow’ or more ‘ah-ha’ all depends on your audience and your aim. Like most things it’s a spectrum, and probably worth being honest whereabouts on it you’re aiming for when you set out creating any graphic.
In an editorial world more often than not it’s about achieving an ‘ah-ha’. And this is neatly illustrated by all the different ways I’ve heard this same thing expressed recently. I’ve pulled them together here.
‘What do you want to find out from the data?’ not ‘what can you do with the data?’
Simon Rogers, Guardian Datablog (related post)
Less noise, more story
My observation from this year’s Malofiej infograpic conference
Not ‘what does the data show’ but ‘how did the data get that way’
Joe Ward, sports graphics editor, New York Times (interview)
Start with a concept to pilot you through the data
David McCandless
And since it’s always good to have an example, here’s an interactive graphic from the OECD that conveniently illustrates both concepts. Click on the image to go and explore it.
Designed and created by Moritz Stefaner, Jonas Leist, Timm Kekeritz (for Raureif design consultancy)
Being both ‘wow’ and ‘ah-ha’ clearly isn’t something every graphic needs to do but happens to be something this one manages to do well. Which is impressive given it’s a fine line to tread stylistically too, with ‘wow’ being easier to make engaging and playful and ‘ah-ha’ which can err on the side of dry.
Why I blog. I also freelance. I run workshops too. Who I am (LinkedIn). Some of my work (Flickr). Contact me via contact at lulupinney dot co dot uk.