Not since I created this blog two years ago have I used it as a forum for my rants and raves, but I have grown so frustrated with the current state of “Information Graphics” and “Data Visualization” that I can no longer hold my silence. I decided to write this after finding this “information graphic” this morning on Gizmodo: (and as I am finishing up this article I noticed it got posted to GOOD Magazine as well)
I don’t even know where to start with this one. As anyone who has spent any time making a REAL information graphic or data visualization will tell you, more than half the battle is deciding what data or information you want to present. An info graphic is only as good as it’s content, and this one’s content seems to be defining data visualization with a bunch of loosely sorted buzz words. It is unclear how we are supposed to read the graphic: it appears that there are three large circles representing design, communication, and information, but how are the three other words on the outside (user interface, visual communication, and data journalism) represented in the graphic? What is the significance of the darker, concentric circles within the larger ones? The graphic provides no clarity, only confusion and the illusion that the person that created it somehow understands more the viewer.
It doesn’t help either that they lifted (by their own admission) the format for their graphic from this iA piece, (which is not without ITS problems). The format of the information should match the information itself, not be some arbitrary arrangement of colorful shapes.
Even if we play along with the ridiculous format of the graphic, the “information” to be gleaned from it is largely false and absurd. “Typography” is not part of “Visual Design,” “Logic” has nothing to do with “Design” at all, and “Concept” = “Look and Feel” + “Data” + “Objective”? Not to mention words like “Dashboard” and “Knowledge” which seem utterly out of place.
So maybe I am being a bit harsh. After all, it’s just one graphic, and we all know it’s a lot easier to sit here and pick something to pieces than it is to actually create something. The thing is though, this is far from an isolated incident. Ever since Nick Feltron brought information graphics to the main stage aesthetically, you can’t stroll through the blogosphere, or down the halls of any design school in the country, without tripping over cluttered and confounding information graphics. Many of them are strikingly beautiful; we have collectively gotten very good at making numbers and graphs look dazzling. There is nothing wrong with making things look good, but when it comes at the sacrifice of readability and communication, you sure as hell had better not call whatever you’re making an INFORMATION graphic. Call it a beautiful pile of numbers, shapes, and colors, call it Fine Art, call it “experimental”, but don’t call it an information graphic.
Here is another prime example of information graphics gone wrong, (thanks to Anthony for reminding me) from the author of a popular info graphics book nonetheless:
This graphic does appear to have an interesting data set that I would love to explore and know more about, unfortunately the information has been so convoluted in the name of aesthetics that it is near unreadable. As Tony mentioned, this information would be more digestible in a spreadsheet than in this form, and that makes this graphic a failure in my eyes.
My intent is not to complain or whine about these particular pieces; goodness knows there is no shortage of graphics just like them I could have chosen. I decided to write about this because I care, a lot, about what I do. As designers, we have a responsibility to ourselves, our clients, and our audience to do the best we can to present information as clearly and concisely as possible. Visual language is just as powerful as spoken language, if not more so. You wouldn’t give a speech to a crowd of people you hadn’t thought long and hard about, so let’s stop filling the world with information graphics that demonstrate no thought or consideration behind them. It’s not harmless; this stuff matters.
I would also encourage a re-evaluation of the term “Information Graphics”. Almost everything we design has some information to convey, right? Sometimes that information is better communicated without big numbers in a sans-serif typeface and charts and graphs.
What do you think?
