Talk:Infographic

Problems

• the cat Infographics is incomplete and is basically the same term as Information graphics. Can a term be a category and an article?
• Possible overlap with other pages: Information visualization, Information design, Visualization (graphic) etc

Information visualization is not the same as information graphics (one is usually computer generated, the other generated through a creative process). Information design seems to be for the most part a synonym for information architecture. Visualization (graphic) should probably be merged with Information visualization - Sbwoodside 05:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sbwoodside. Redirecting from Information visualization to Information graphics is very arguable. --JiggySoo (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Probably should suck in Illustration Sbwoodside 23:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

images to incorporate from commons

• Image:Wash-dc-metro-map.png subway map
• Image:Atmometer.jpg mechanical schematic
• Image:Dolphin_head_sound_production.PNG sectional diagram
• Image:Muybridge_horse_jumping.jpg photo sequence
• Image:CometDiagram.gif time / space
• Image:Altchristliche_Basilika_MK1890.jpg church floor plan
• Image:VolcanicPipe.jpg cross section of a volcano
• Image:Sunlayers.gif layer diagram

Sbwoodside 05:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Variables of the Minard Graphic on Napoleon's march on Moscow

According to Edward Tufte (1983): "The Visual Display of Quantitative Information", page 40, Minard's graphic shows six variables:

1. size of the army
2. location of army: longitude
3. location of army: latitude
4. direction of the army's movement
5. direction of the army's movement
6. temperature during retreat from Moscow

Not to be nitpick about the variable count but I never saw "altitude" being mentioned as a displayed variable in the graph and I can see no hints that show altitude.

--Michael N

Misleading graphs?

Wouldn't it be worth mentioning the ways in which graphs and charts can be distorted (such as starting the y axis of a bar chart at 50 instead of 0) in order to mislead? After all, in this way they can be turned from tools of information to tools of misinformation, which seems kind of important to me. Kasreyn 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted link... move somewhere else?

• UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library, web-site from the UN Environment Programme with hundreds of information graphics and maps

not really appropriate here (too specific...) , but maybe in an article about the environment or maps. Sbwoodside 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Permission to Contribute

I am the author of several books and articles on information graphics and visual communication. My books show anyone how to turn their ideas into clear, communicative, compelling images. They are the first "how to conceptualize" books (that I am aware of). The books were targeted toward businesses so the title "Billion Dollar Graphics: 3 Easy Steps to Turn Your Ideas Into Persuasive Visuals" may lead one to believe it is not educational. On the contrary, I wish these books had existed when I was learning visual communication. I would like permission from the wathchers/administrator to link this resource (www.billiondollargraphics.com) to this page. College professors use the books as a training tool and as an example of how we apply visual communication (information graphics) to everyday needs. The books are a valuable resource for anyone interested in infographics and/or visual communication. Thank you and forgive me if this is an inappropriate venue for this request.MikeParkinson 16:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking here. You must've instinctually understood the conflict of interest :)

I have a couple of questions. Your books (http://www.billiondollargraphics.com) don't turn up on Amazon, or indeed anywhere else online [1] except your wife's blog. I'm guessing that means you're self-published, and perhaps don't have an ISBN for them? That makes it a little harder to verify notability, which leads to my second question - which specific colleges are using your texts?

Lastly, did you mean you want to link your site from here, or link to here from your site? (linking to a site never requires permission).

Your sample pdf's look reasonable though (if a little heavy on the self-promotion and dubious statistics ("Up your success rate by 43%" ?!?)). So, I'm going to add your book provisionally (and tufte's 4 books) to the references and further reading section; though another editor may disagree and remove it again (that's how things work around here :)

Thanks again for asking, and just to mention - we really do value content additions to articles, more than external links, so feel free to add material to the article itself. :) --Quiddity 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating my request and thank you for believing in the educational value of the material. To answer your questions... The books are new and being used for upcoming classes at UMUC and UMBC. The ISBNs are 978-1-4243-1668-7 and 978-1-4243-1665-6. I am working with Amazon right now to be added to their vast database of books. I self published because of my passion for visual communication, conceptualization, and infographics. I believed in the material's benefits far more than the publishers I approached and I did not want to compromise the content to lower printing costs, etc. My published associates strongly suggested I self publish for other reasons. The only way I could think to get people to care was if I showed them how conceptualization and visual communication could benefit them (hence the title and the marketing approach). It would be a shame if the educational benefits of the books were lost because of the marketing approach. (No revenue = no books = a lost opportunity the spread the word.) The "43%" is from a 1986 study sponsored by 3M at the University of Minnesota School of Management. All statistics are from independent research done by reputable learning institutions and organizations. I will be adding my findings to Wikipedia. The history I found, my professional experience, and the sea of research from which to pull data is extraordinary and MUST be shared. I hope other Wikipedia watchers and administrators will see the value in the books and its application to Wikipedia users. If anyone doubts the value, please download a free copy of the Introduction at http://www.billiondollargraphics.com/books.html. Thanks again to all who support Wikipedia and care about the content. You touch more lives than you know.

Missing Real World Application

The Wikipedia infographics entry assumes all infographics are used for objective communication. What about businesses? Most professionals use infographics to communicate AND influence or motivate. The goal to persuade as well as communicate does not prevent a visual from being classified as an infographic. I added a link to an article that explains this fact (Billion Dollar Graphics). Please keep the link available for those of us that use infographics for persuasion as well. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeParkinson (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

"Information graphic" is unclear because "information" is very broad. There is technical information, analytical information, educational information, navigational information, etc. When it's not information it's either misinformation or data. There is no category for "misinformation graphics" or "data graphics".

What the article is not mentioning are the things not categorized as information like randomness, humorous, decorative, aesthetic, "entertaining" things that are often considered by the left-brain analytical types as "meaningless" art. It's my personal opinion that the category implies the false dichotomy that graphics must be either informative "or" entertaining, never both. It's also my opinion that the category is a subtile way of implying that artists who know entertainment and aesthetics can't possibly know how to communicate anything meaningful or informative. Is there such a title as an "information graphic artist?" Oicumayberight 23:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The term "information graphic" is very broad indeed. There is a long list of subcategories (depending upon how granular the list). Entertainment was not addressed because business professionals typically focus on communicating information (data or the like) as well as less obvious messages like trustworthiness and professionalism. (There is more to it than that but for sake of brevity I will stop.) Many of the graphics we see are often informative and entertaining (some ads, political cartoons, book covers). I consider myself an “information graphic artist.” My goal is to share information in a way that is easily digested, memorable, appealing, and influences or motivates the audience. I strongly believe that most “aware” designers are information graphic artists and may not even know it (or categorize it as such). It sounds as if you have focused some time on the topic. If you have time to chat email me at info@billiondollargraphics.com. Perhaps, I can send you my books and get your thoughts. 68.100.249.171 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What kind of graphics are definitely not information graphics? Oicumayberight 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Types of Graphics

I didn't find anything in the major listings that would describe this (chart?)
So what type of graphic would you classify it as, and why isn't that part of the 'types' section (or why doesn't the type of graphic it is, have a description which encompasses it)?
~ender 2007-04-25 12:22:PM MST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.167.217.162 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I think that is a chart. It seems you do too, as you call it a chart & posted another statement on the talk page for chart. --Karnesky 20:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In particular, it is a segmented column/bar chart. --Karnesky 20:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced

I was trying to encourage the use of inline citations. See WP:CITE for more info on them. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that there is no policy that requires inline citations. If you think they are appropriate, but can't/don't want to add them yourself, it is probably better to use one of the citation-needed templates to flag specific passages that you'd like to see inline citations for. --Karnesky 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

cross-reference with sparklines

Since the two concepts are related, shouldn't the two articles be linked somehow? -- Syd Barrett (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I Added a basic link there (feel free to work it into the text :) but the Category:Infographics will have to suffice for a link from here; there are too many to list them all here individually, I think (plus it's already listed at List of graphical methods). -- Quiddity (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are all graphs and charts considered to be infographics?

For example:

• 
• 
• 

Are the plainest data charts like the image to the left considered to be infographics? I think they are, but I am not sure. See:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=define:information+graphics
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infographics
• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information+graphics

I think it is an evolving term. I like the definition here:

• http://www.texastech.edu/identityguidelines/glossary.php

"Information Graphics. A general term of reference for charts, graphs, plans, drawings, diagrams, tables or any other graphic depiction of information designed to demonstrate or explain how something works or to clarify the relationship between the parts of a whole."

This broad definition would help greatly in classification and category naming at the Wikimedia Commons. "Infographics" is a very common term, and a Google search finds hundreds of thousands of pages using it:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=infographics

Looking at the pages seems to confirm the broad definition of the word. So do Google Scholar searches:

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=infographics+charts
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=infographics+graphs --Timeshifter (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have asked myself the same question some time ago, but haven't found a definite answer. I think there is some general consensus that "Information graphics are graphics used anywhere where information needs to be explained quickly or simply". But I believe there are different opinions about which visualization techniques can be considered infographics. These opinions are:

1. Information graphics are a specific category of visual information, such as pictographs, Direction, position, or indication sign and specific informative maps.
2. Information graphics include all charts, graphs, plans, drawings, diagrams, tables or any other graphic depiction.
3. Information graphics include all charts, graphs, plans, drawings, diagrams, tables or any other graphic depiction, that explained quickly or simply.
4. There is no consensus about this question.

No maybe I am mistaken here. I haven't really tested this hypothesis. I have a couple of other ideas here:

• Infographics is a relativelly new and unknown term. For example, the latest Word spellingschecker doesn't know the term Infographic only "Info graphic".
• Infographics don't generaly include photo's. I am not sure about technical drawings and illustrations.
• Infographics don't include the new scientific visualizations and information visualizations. At least, that field doesn't seem to make this link.
• This article seems written by people, who want to promote the term "Information graphics". At the moment there is no real reference to back this up. There is a high level of wishful thinking if you state things like "In prehistory, early humans created the first information graphics: cave paintings and later maps".
• An other remarkeble thing is that some experts in this field, such as Lee E. Brasseur in "Visualizing Technical Information: A Cultural Critique" (2003), doesn't even use the word.

I do want to investigate this some more and will let you know if I find some things more.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My question was mainly about charts and graphs. I don't think complex scientific visualizations are necessarily information graphics until they are labeled. Otherwise they are not really presenting any information to a non-expert. They are like charts and graphs without column, row, x-axis, and y-axis labels.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:information+graphics pulled up this too:

used to communicate trends, make comparisons, and organize structures (charts, graphs, tables, and maps).

http://www.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/asewell/documents/Textbook_Glossary.rtf

So the 2 non-wikipedia-based "information graphics" definitions pulled up by Google both say that charts, graphs, and tables are considered infographics.

It may be awhile before all dictionaries list the word "infographics", but it shouldn't be a problem in my opinion to use it in articles and categories as long as we explain that it is short for the common phrase "information graphics". Infographics is a common word. See:

http://www.google.com/search?q=infographics

This Google search pulls up hundreds of thousands of results that use the word.

And I am not sure if all cave paintings were labeled. So I don't know if they could be called infographics. Many might better be called abstract art unless it looks like there are some labels, or it looks like an obvious map. ;) --Timeshifter (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll shoot from the hip with my opinion, because I think with a 21st century Transfusionterm^TM anyone's opinion is valid, but none are definitive. Full POV disclosure: I dislike newly made up terms that retrospectively seek to include vast swathes of human endevour - they irritate me. That said, the roots of the word in "information" and "graphic" spell out the basic boundaries:

1. Pure art is excluded due to low information content
2. Pure text is excluded due to required graphic component
3. A simple graph, diagram or sign that is pure information transfer with minimal aesthetic or text component is the 'purest' infographic.

How to set the boundary within the limits is up for grabs. I work from the assumption that the intent behind infographics are to portray information to a wide and non-specialist audience. My opinions are:

• A table is not an infographic. It carries very little or no graphic component such as lines or shapes to indicate relationships or to convey any other information. Calling a table an infographic is close to calling a spreadsheet an infographic which I think is silly and not aligned with the intentions of the inventors of the term.
• Technical drawings, illustrations & plans are close to the line. They generally have a strong graphic component but they may also be strongly aesthetic, rather than informative (as in industrial design & advertising), and/or the information content can be complex and specialised (eg. piping and instrumentation diagrams for an oil refinery). I say they fall outside infographics because I suspect neither infographics gurus nor engineers would want that unholy union :)
• Ditto scientific visualisations that have or represent heavy information content, but may be weak in terms of 'simplicity'.
• I think overly broad terms & categories are less useful than none at all: I say let's draw the line at signs, charts, graphs & diagrams regardless of what Merriam Webster may think. No art, no science, no engineering.
• That's my 2 cents worth. Dhatfield (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess then it depends on how much one hates a particular topic (such as math). ;)

As they told us in English class we should write with our audience in mind. PC World and The Economist magazine audiences versus general circulation magazines (Time magazine, Newsweek).

Tables with too much math, complexity, etc.. may not qualify as useful infographics for some audiences. But many are still infographics in my opinion. But not unfocused spreadsheets or accounting tables without some labels that try to make a point comprehensible to someone outside accounting. Here is what Google and Google Scholar pulls up:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22information+graphics%22+tables

http://www.google.com/search?q=infographics+tables

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=infographics+tables

There are many tables in magazines. And it seems that their creation comes under the rubric of "infographics". Here are more searches:

http://www.google.com/search?q=infographics+tables+magazines

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=infographics+tables+magazines

This looks like an authoritative book online:

http://books.google.com/books?id=LT1RXREvkGIC

"Information Graphics: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference." It is searchable too. This may help see the scope of the field. Here are some searches for table and tables:

http://books.google.com/books?id=LT1RXREvkGIC&q=table#search

http://books.google.com/books?id=LT1RXREvkGIC&q=tables#search

It pulls up some pages that can be read online. Scroll to the middle of the search result page to see the links to the pages online. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Dhatfield. Thanks. This seems like a good proposal. I repeat:

• Let's draw the line at...
• ...signs, charts, graphs & diagrams,
• ... No art, no science, no engineering

But I am not a fan of promoting this term to much in Wikipedia and Wikicommons. I would like a listing of definitions of this term, added to the article, based on reliable sources.

@ Timeshifter. I think it is hardly a matter of hate. I think a lot of ordinairy people still don't know the term "Infographic".

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my poor attempt at a joke. I was referring to the average American's hatred of math, not infographics. And looking at User:Dhatfield I see a Ph.D degree in chemical engineering listed, hardly a math slacker there. :)

"Information Graphics: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference." Here is the summary description of the book (emphasis added): "This beautifully illustrated book is the first complete handbook to visual information. Well written, easy to use, and carefully indexed, it describes the full range of charts, graphs, maps, diagrams, and tables used daily to manage, analyze, and communicate information. It features over 3,000 illustrations, making it an ideal source for ideas on how to present information. It is an invaluable tool for anyone who writes or designs reports, whether for scientific journals, annual reports, or magazines and newspapers."

Infographics for scientific journals are going to have lots of science, math, and engineering terms. So we can't remove those topics. Wikipedia reflects both common and scholarly usage of terms. So the article should mention both. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)