codehesive.com : interaction design, ux, data visualisation, gaming & miscellany

Two things I’ve noticed recently.

One is a flurry of ‘infographics’ around the web. Just like rounded corners and shiny buttons went viral earlier last decade, this time it seems to be print-style high-res graphics choc-full of eye candy and numbers.

Two is a recent reaction against observation number one. Tom Morris for one launched a somewhat one-sided but justified rant; on the flipside, Connie Malamed talks semantics about what an infographic is, and even coins ‘infoposter’ as a better description of infographic’s less refined relation.

Can we really give a name to all these formats? Should we judge them? I’m personally at the point now when I see the term ‘infographic’ I usually prepare for disappointment. I find it really interesting that on Edward Tufte‘s website, there’s hardly any reference to the word ‘infographic‘; and where it is mentioned, it’s not by Edward Tufte, but from other people emailing questions etc.

Edward Tufte talks about information design, graphic design and even art. Data visualisation, infographics etc. are all examples of these — and in the bigger picture, just one part of telling a story. Conveying understanding. Sometimes a video is the best medium for this; sometimes a picture. Sometimes an audio clip. Sometimes an graphic. Would you call one of Hans Rosling’s videos on health in developing nations an infovideo? No, that would sound silly.

A graphic is a graphic, and with any other medium, it’s only as good as the artist behind it and the understanding they have of the subject matter — regardless of what you call it.