Why We Hate Infographics
insights.qunb.com
insights.qunb.com
They link to an infographic on fuel sources and energy use from loveinfographics.com. Then they ask you to look at it for 10 seconds and ask they ask what you have learned.
I might as well ask people (who don't speak Chinese) to run the author's article through Bablefish English > Chinese, remove all images, then read "Why We Hate Infographics" article carefully and tell what they learned. It would, of course, be a useless article, but that does not reflect badly on the article: it was never intended to be consumed that way!
The infographic they link to is the kind of infographic that I find extremely valuable (and also quite difficult to create). A diagram which conveys a VERY significant amount of information in a very concise format. Looking at that graphic I can glean the following facts:
* Gas and oil make up a little more than half of US fuel supplies. * Electricity is used roughly equally by residential, commercial, and industrial clients (well, slightly less for industrial). * I heat my home with fuel oil. Apparently I'm a minority in that, but not by an extreme amount: we fuel oil users make up maybe 5% of the usage (not the population).
None of that information was a specific detail that the chart authors wanted to convey, so using less detailed methods would never have conveyed the information. A series of charts with numbers could have conveyed the information, but not in a form I could have processed with my brain (unless maybe I used it to build a chart like this).
I want to defend complex data visualizations that convey large amounts of information in easily perceived ways. I still think the "infographics" that just just illustrate things with pretty pictures are stupid.
This infographic article seems to borrow some of his ideas without even mentioning him.
I would suggest folks read tufte's "the cognitive style of powerpoint." Lots of similar concepts in a short pamphlet.
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
Our point is that this pieces information could easily have been conveyed in separate simple charts, conveying each of the *data_points you quote one chart at a time.
You can understand this type of chart because you can take the time and the effort to work on the comprehension of it. And you're interested. We think it's a segregating way to convey information, leaving on the side of the road people who could have benefitted of the message were it explained in a simpler purer format.
The really simple infographic of the MS/Nokia purchase actually makes no point at all; of course the WinPho marketshare figure is a reasonable proxy for the Nokia marketshare figure, so if one is small the other will be too.
The sad thing is that I absolutely agree with your basic message, but your examples are off.
Conveying information in charts is more efficient and quicker (and can lead, yes, sometimes, to data abuse), than using cabalistic data visualizations for the sake of Adobe Illustrator that obscure the clarity of the message by adding density to it. We believe that is not a good way to carry data for maximum impact to your audience, whoever that is.
Cute captioned photos are a dime a dozen, especially since websites for producing them for free popped up to feed some people's Facebook walls. Don't bother. Use a diagram when it really illustrates something, and write clearly the rest of the time. One of the strengths of the discussion on Hacker News is paragraphs of actual thoughtful text.
In fact, wouldn't data-to-ink ratio apply even for text?
1) They remove axis labels, forcing the reader to infer the axis from context.
2) They remove the horizontal lines, making it harder to compare different values visually.
3) They remove tickmarks, so the reader no longer knows if the origin is at zero or not.
4) They add labels with 3 significant digits, which gives the reader a false sense of precision.
Overall they arrive at a graphic that may be nicer to look at, but is functionally much worse than the original.
The one part that's really tricky is color. I actually liked the colored version a bit better, even though it provided no extra information content. Sure, if you want to use color for only one value (bacon) as a highlight that makes sense, but more generally I think a little bit of appropriate color can help maintain attention.
The 3 significant digits is the raw full-precision data, if you want to do more with the graph than get a brief impression. This in contrast to having to infer an approximation by following lines to a coarse axis and visually interpolating the desired values. Providing this data obviates objections #2 & #3.
Don't let the tickmarks, there or not, distract you from the zero. A favored lie in statistics is to conceal the lack (or off-the-chart) of zero, betting that the reader won't notice it having been dazzled by the dramatic angles on what (in many cases) is a rather flat data set. Default assumption should be the origin IS zero; if you're hiding the zero, ask yourself if you're really trying to lie to the reader. Marking the origin may provide plausible deniability, but most readers won't notice it - so act on truth, rather than concealing the lie in plain sight.
Comparison should be as natural as the context & form of the graph makes appropriate. If it's not suitably obvious, reconsider the graph type. If the reader wants more accuracy, a graph may not be the best medium - and golly there's the raw data.
The context should make the axis labels obvious and redundant. If it's not already obvious, reconsider whether the title or other commentary can be reworded to make it obvious.
Of course, all this depends on what you're really trying to tell the reader, and what form follows that function. If tick marks or labels or origin value is necessary, include it ... but whatever isn't necessary, drop it.
I like data visualization when I'm doing it for myself, or when a trusted colleague is using it to share information. Certainly there is much that can be seen more readily from a graphic than a number. But infographics are propaganda.
p.s. For those so inclined, this book is 40 years old but still Gold. http://archive.org/details/HowToLieWithStatistics
> #4. Most of them focus on form rather than substance
That's true for anything - a web page design, an iPhone UI, a newspaper ad. "Most" of the stuff out there is always going to be average to below average, and infographics are no different. Normal distribution et al.
> #3. One page to tell a story? Really?
I'm not expecting to learn the "story" when I look at an infographic, and I accept that it's condensing information for me so that it's easily consumable (when the infographic is good, at least). If I want to see the most Metallica songs played on tour, I'll check out an infographic about it. If I want the history of a particular song, I'll look elsewhere. Infographics aren't supposed to provide the full story, that's what makes them consumable!
> #2. Infographics ask too much to your brain
See point #4. Pointing to a bad example and treating it like the norm is a very poor way of making a point.
>#1. Infographics are not DYI
Sure, but here's your opportunity for a startup.
Edit: And this http://junkcharts.typepad.com/numbersruleyourworld/2010/05/m...
Quick question on the paper's methodology...is 20 a big enough sample size?
anytime someone looks at a chart, they should be able to ask "but what happen's when x, y and z change?" being able to manipulate the data without forcing the audience to run calculations themselves should be the norm. it takes work, but i hope we get there someday.
A bit more on the actual topic of infographics (vs just data visualisation) would be a company that also "hates" them, but is putting out a tool that helps people build "living infographics". They're like the normal infographics we see, but they aren't static and you can actually interact and manipulate the data which turns them into both a marketing tool (outbound) and a market research tool (inbound).
Check them out here: http://stipso.com/
Make some accessible html5 infographics, then we'll talk
For example the "t's" and "r's" and "l's" in the following sidebar text are almost invisible: "The data that makes your business tick is never more convincing than when it's put in context inside a story"
I'd always thought that was to not confuse with graph theory.
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=chart%2C+plot%2...
Infographics are fine, and like anything, can be abused. Their example of 'look at this infographic for 10 seconds' was just stupid. It was too small to see any of the text, and infographics aren't intended to be viewed for only ten seconds. Not to mention that if I actually strain to read the writing they're obfuscating, the graphic actually makes plenty of sense and is very clear. They're stacking the deck for their favourite argument.
I think you have that backwards; "infographics" aren't really "information" + "graphics" but more like "infomercial" + "graphics", which is why they sacrifice accuracy -- or more generally effective communication of factual information, of which accuracy is a part -- in favor of emotional appeal.
The choices that involve tradeoff of accuracy, etc., don't precede determination of the purpose.
Okay, but you don't present anything that contradicts it.
> Infographics is a tool for conveying a message AND optimize for viral spread of this message.
Sure, infographics are a tool for conveying a desired message and encouraging its viral spread (they are a transmission medium for meme's in Dawkins original sense of the word as a replicating unit of behavior.) None of that is contrary to what I said. In fact, its pretty much a rewording of what I said.
> That is the reason for infographics to appeal to emotions, not necessarily to sell something.
Yes, the memes infographics are used to spread aren't always purchase decision memes. I don't think that does anything to change the fact that they sacrifice effective communication of factual information to serve their promotional purposes.
> Infographics are used by all kinds of nonprofits
So are infomercials; I think the comparison remains apt.
Pie charts are hard to read and to compare size. As you can see in that example, for you (the user) to gather the information, you need to see the percentile, then also look at the legend outside the pie chart. A bar graph would've conveyed the information more efficiently.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...
I find a good infographic is great for syntopical study. As they say, a simple chart is good for a single point. But what if I want to look at the relationships between those single points? Do I flip between slides rapidly to find the connection? Do I open up multiple 'simple charts' and arrange them on my screen to study? (which I can't do right now as I'm on an iPad).
I say use the right tool for the job...
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d7e24/my_job_was_to_ga...
Since I suck at design though I tend to need to do simpler charts. :)