Couple of helpful cooking infographics.
Infographics
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Infographics
by wax » Wed Nov 04, 2015 4:34 am
I have conflicting views on this
On one hand, infographics are like the data equivalent of entry level hipster garbage. On the other, good infographics are fucking great, but deceptively simple but almost impossible to actually get right.
I have to deal with people who ask for 'infographic-style' outputs in their reports and EIS's and what not. The whole concept gives me the shits because making a good infographic is actually considerably harder than just preparing a report normally, and requires a grossly disproportionate amount of time to create whilst simultaneously conveying less information. Conveying less information is not necessarily a bad thing, as cutting a concept down to its core components is a hugely useful thing to do - that's why we have exec summaries. But an exec summary doesn't need half a week of graphic design time, and if there's any kind of iterative, bureaucratic consultation process involved you can just forget the whole thing. Try sending the same report back to a graphic designer six times because two directors don't agree on the colour/size/position of a clipart car and see if you can retain any sanity.
There is a huge quantity of absolutely garbage level infographics floating around. This is (often) because infographics require the input of both subject matter experts and people capable of design. So you end up with either inaccurate or misleading but flashy posters, or a whole bunch of text on a blue background with a big red car in the top corner (or bottom corner? can you re-do it with that?). The other issue is often that they're poorly scoped for an intended audience.
I'm going to use this as an example because it was on the first page of my google search, I have no involvement with the organisation that made it, and I'm generally across this topic.
First pass:
- using 6 people to represent over 50,000 population and then 4 people to represent under 15,000
- the same image used for close to/further from/isolated from major centres, but hey lol let's just chuck it on the other side one time
- my biggest complaint is that this doesn't even tell you anything useful, unless for some reason you are invested in understanding how this department categorises regional Australia for funding or whatever, in which case you're probably getting paid by someone and are only interested in the damn exec summary anyway.
oh god too sick of this shit need to go chill out and have a beer.
On one hand, infographics are like the data equivalent of entry level hipster garbage. On the other, good infographics are fucking great, but deceptively simple but almost impossible to actually get right.
I have to deal with people who ask for 'infographic-style' outputs in their reports and EIS's and what not. The whole concept gives me the shits because making a good infographic is actually considerably harder than just preparing a report normally, and requires a grossly disproportionate amount of time to create whilst simultaneously conveying less information. Conveying less information is not necessarily a bad thing, as cutting a concept down to its core components is a hugely useful thing to do - that's why we have exec summaries. But an exec summary doesn't need half a week of graphic design time, and if there's any kind of iterative, bureaucratic consultation process involved you can just forget the whole thing. Try sending the same report back to a graphic designer six times because two directors don't agree on the colour/size/position of a clipart car and see if you can retain any sanity.
There is a huge quantity of absolutely garbage level infographics floating around. This is (often) because infographics require the input of both subject matter experts and people capable of design. So you end up with either inaccurate or misleading but flashy posters, or a whole bunch of text on a blue background with a big red car in the top corner (or bottom corner? can you re-do it with that?). The other issue is often that they're poorly scoped for an intended audience.
I'm going to use this as an example because it was on the first page of my google search, I have no involvement with the organisation that made it, and I'm generally across this topic.
First pass:
- using 6 people to represent over 50,000 population and then 4 people to represent under 15,000
- the same image used for close to/further from/isolated from major centres, but hey lol let's just chuck it on the other side one time
- my biggest complaint is that this doesn't even tell you anything useful, unless for some reason you are invested in understanding how this department categorises regional Australia for funding or whatever, in which case you're probably getting paid by someone and are only interested in the damn exec summary anyway.
oh god too sick of this shit need to go chill out and have a beer.
- 5
-
wax - Posts: 77
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:27 am
- Location: Brisbane
- Reputation: 579
5 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests