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.
Ref: the simplify point. The famous (via Tufte) graphic of Napoleon's invasion of Russia (http://www.improving-visualisation.org/vis/id=205) is widely cited as as a great example of conveying information useful and dramatically. If you accept this as an exemplar--you don't have to of course--it's anything but simple. Rather, it's a graphic that requires study but, given that study, offers up a great deal of information in return.
Hey! I get your point but complex data visualizations that convey large amounts of information suffer a bias: they are overly complex by condensating too much information, and very often they do so to look obtuse and expert (and thus cool).
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.
I loved the post but I agree that the energy infographic was a bad example to use because it's one of my favourite infographics. I have referred to versions of it often and find it very good at expressing some of the points I want to study or talk about.
Its like an finding an encyclopedia, when a picture normally presents an idea. The OP criticized your graphic for having too much and no clear main idea. That part was true.
The submitted article includes one section that begins, "Ever heard of the data-to-ink ratio? If so, skip this." But please don't skip that. That is an excellent visual illustration of how to remove "chartjunk" (Tufte's term) from a data graphic, vividly showing how much a chart can be improved by being simplified.
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.
Yup, i thought the animation was brilliant. Pretty much summed the blog post. The equivalent in HN is the wall of text - breaking down the message into paragraphs, and keeping the content crisp makes posts/comments a lot more readable.
In fact, wouldn't data-to-ink ratio apply even for text?
Getting pretty tired of all these posts that are telling me what I should hate. It's just infographics. They're not a substitute for hard core analytics and they're not supposed to be. It's a designers spin on providing summary level data that sits somewhere between the words of design and analysis. If you want a quickly digestible, publishable bit of content, use infographics. If you want to provide more meat to your message, don't use them.
I'm not a big fan of infographics because I keep thinking of Mark Twain saying, "There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." I'm always thinking, "What are they trying to pull over on me, and how should I be arguing against it?" The infographic usually hides more than it reveals.
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.
I'm surprised that the criticism of the "Kenya" infographic is limited to deriding its visual style as childish (and its lack of message). This graphic is much worse for the fact that there is no relationship between the numeric and graphic quantities (other than monotonicity). For example, 39.5 million people is about twice as many as 35.8? Why be snarky about it looking like something a kindergartner would do when there is substantive criticism to be given?
That's actually my point: the general layout is so idiotic that you even don't look critically at the meaning of each representation. Indeed I did not notice the mistakes you mentioned.
I hate infographics. Although I understand the need for an overview of a subject, I don't think it's a substitute for a meaty body of text. I feel that anytime a subject is processed and homogenized into a one page graphic that I'm selling myself short. They remind me of "talking points" you see on the "news". I'd rather just read a body of text and then give myself some leeway to discover more about the topic in my own way. I have the patience and willpower to truly discover some truths, instead of parroting a factoid from an infographic. I do like how they are being used to draw people into a topic, and I do understand how data scientists are redefining visualization, I just don't like to see a ton of them for no reason other than being trendy.
Why do I have to hate infographics again? Let me counter these four points in basic form:
> #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.
Not DIY => "Sure, but here's your opportunity for a startup."
Agree, that's actually the opportunity that our friends at infogr.am and visual.ly are digging.
Given the vast amount of junky infographics, I generally agree with their philosophy. They do, however, seem to ignore some of the research on the value of chartjunk. Like this paper, which won a best paper award at CHI '10: http://hci.usask.ca/publications/view.php?id=173
I'm inclined to believe their findings, in the same way that I'd agree putting a picture of Miley Cyrus as the lead art for a story about unemployment rates would make you notice and remember that one story more than other unemployment rate stories.
Quick question on the paper's methodology...is 20 a big enough sample size?
I personally find vudlab's charts pretty cool. I first came across them in the Simpson's paradox article[1] and i really loved them because they let me EXPLORE the data. Yep, they're interactive! That gives a whole new prespective to the readers.
d3's interactivity > excel and tableau in terms of quality data visualization.
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.
It struck me that the post on why we hate infographics vs. the product the company puts out (visualisations of various data sources) was a bit of a non sequitur but the product does seems interesting and I'll probably give it a go.
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).
The main problem is the data is stuck in a bitmap, because it's 1985? The citations are graphics, you can't click them, you can't copy the data out and make your own charts, etc etc.
Make some accessible html5 infographics, then we'll talk
I hate to be the one to bring this up, but the contrast between your body font color (and even heading font) and background is downright horrible. It could also be how the font is being rendered, it looks thin and broken up.
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"
With Adblock it didn't even load the CSSs. And I might say, reading it in the default font over a white page improved the readability a lot.
Maybe they should apply their own recomendations and reduce "CSS junk" on their site. ;)
The article appears to be a little confused on the historical use of words like chart and graph, so I wouldn't take anything they say seriously on that part. It's just a catchy introduction, presumably.
There is no One True Way to do a presentation. One message per slide is good for a slideshow, but taking this article to their logical extreme, they don't like prose, because you should only transfer one message per page. Infographics aren't meant to be slideshows - and slideshows suck when there isn't someone talking to them. Infographics aren't meant to have someone talking to them.
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.
Infographics sacrifice accuracy i.e. proportions, colors etc in favor of emotional appeal. Sometimes facts need to be packaged better for a greater impact. That's why they are primarily used for promotional rather than for reporting purposes.
> Infographics sacrifice accuracy i.e. proportions, colors etc in favor of emotional appeal. Sometimes facts need to be packaged better for a greater impact. That's why they are primarily used for promotional rather than for reporting purposes.
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.
I'm observing that many minimalistic/simplified forms of complex subjects are for the benefit of those who actually navigated the complexity, grokked it, and saw the underlying simplicity ... then documented it as simplicity in that context. It means little to anyone not already familiar with the complexity. Kudos if that understanding can be presented as a shortcut to enlightening the ignorant, but most of the time it's really done as a conclusion, not an introduction. Reading the ending of the story is not enlightening unless you've read from the beginning.
The article writer contradicts him/herself when they emphasis "simplifying" infographics (with the animated gif example), but their favorite infographic at the moment is the Microsoft/Nokia example they showed. That infographic contains a pie chart.
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.
[+] [-] mcherm|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ghaff|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mercutionario|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] richardjordan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jakobe|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] hsuresh|12 years ago|reply
In fact, wouldn't data-to-ink ratio apply even for text?
[+] [-] redact207|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Intermernet|12 years ago|reply
See http://halfblog.net/2013/01/22/infographics-of-xkcd/
[+] [-] mathattack|12 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] morpher|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cyrillevincey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ianstallings|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] recroad|12 years ago|reply
> #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.
[+] [-] cyrillevincey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimt67|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cscheid|12 years ago|reply
Edit: And this http://junkcharts.typepad.com/numbersruleyourworld/2010/05/m...
[+] [-] danso|12 years ago|reply
Quick question on the paper's methodology...is 20 a big enough sample size?
[+] [-] xerophtye|12 years ago|reply
[1] http://vudlab.com/simpsons/
[+] [-] abbazabba|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nemesisj|12 years ago|reply
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/
[+] [-] mavhc|12 years ago|reply
Make some accessible html5 infographics, then we'll talk
[+] [-] josefresco|12 years ago|reply
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"
[+] [-] rpc_was_taken|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mercutionario|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vacri|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brey|12 years ago|reply
I'd always thought that was to not confuse with graph theory.
[+] [-] tgb|12 years ago|reply
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=chart%2C+plot%2...
[+] [-] vacri|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jkscm|12 years ago|reply
http://wtfviz.net
[+] [-] theorique|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mercutionario|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arocks|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ctdonath|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spader725|12 years ago|reply
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.