Diskussion:Informationsgrafik

Neue Beispiele

Eine Frage, dürften wir hier aktuelle Beispiele aus unserer Praxis einfügen? Zum Beispiel aus unserem Blog: http://yaay.ch/blog/ oder von Behance: https://www.behance.net/yaaych (14:13, 12. Mai 2015 (CEST), Datum/Uhrzeit nachträglich eingefügt, siehe Hilfe:Signatur)

Infografiken sind nicht immer die beste Option

Mit folgender Textpassage aus dem dritten Absatz stimme ich nicht überein:

"Geht es um die Weitergabe von Sachinformationen, sind Infografiken verständlicher und einprägsamer als andere Arten der Informationsvermittlung. Darin liegt die Stärke der Infografik und ihr Vorteil gegenüber den anderen journalistischen Disziplinen."

Meiner Meinung ist eine Infografik nicht immer automatisch der beste Weg Inhalte zu vermitteln. Ich halte die Qualität der Grafik, die Art des Inhalts und die Aufnahmefähigkeit des Betrachters für weitere wichtige Kriterien. Zum Beispiel ist bekannt, dass es verschiedene Lerntypen gibt.

--Magnus Lorenz 15:57, 30. Nov. 2006 (CET)

Da bin ich vollkommen bei dir. Zwar nimmt der Mensch die meisten Information visuell auf und assoziationen mit Bildern helfen ihm dabei, aber das muss nicht für jeden Sachverhalt gelten. --Avron 14:31, 2. Dez. 2006 (CET)

Zu starke Konzentration auf Jornalismus

Der Artikel sollte so abgeändert werden dass Journalismus nicht der einzige Nutzer von Infografiken ist. So ist das einzige Beispiel, eine Metrokarte, sicherlich kein jounalistischer Beitrag.--Avron 13:44, 3. Dez. 2006 (CET)

Dafür könnte die Unterscheidung von Infografiken und Pressegrafiken helfen. Es fehlt auch jeglicher Bezug auf den Onlinesektor.

Geschichte

Dem Thema werde ich mich in den nächsten Tagen einmal annehmen. Sitze nämlich gerade an einem Aufsatz zur Geschichte der Infografik ;-) -- Metaroll 12:11, 25. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

Toll!-- Avron 21:06, 25. Jun. 2008 (CEST)

muss aber noch mal überarbeitet werden. siehe mitte (globalisierung) und ende des abschnitts. --Sophia 19:01, 18. Okt. 2012 (CEST)

avron und valritter haben es erledigt. --Sophia 19:47, 20. Okt. 2012 (CEST)

"Informationsgrafik" and "Infografik"

Hi, I am having a discussion on WikiCommons here and the English Wikipedia here about the term "Infographics" and "Information graphic".

Now I have taken a look here, to see how you have found your ways here. Now I found somthing rather strange. I googled both terms "Informationsgrafik" and "Infografik" and found:

• Informationsgrafik - 7.170 google rate.
• Infografik - 673.000 google rate. (at www.google.de)

It seems to me, that the term "Informationsgrafik" is hardly being used in German, and the term "Infografik" is. So, why didn't you use the term "Infografik" as a title. Could somebody explain? Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 00:42, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

Infografik is an abbreviation of Informationsgrafik. Usually we tend to use the correct terms. -- Avron 11:40, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

Thanks. But are you saying that Informationsgrafik is the correct term for Infografik? I doubt it. It seems to me that both terms are in use?

Now I don't question that Infografik orginally started as an abbreviation of Informationsgrafik. But the situation seems that most people in Germany use the term Infografik. In real life this term is not just an abbreviation. It is the other term, which is used most. I think Wikipedia should represent real life, rather then make statements about what is right and what is wrong, if reality is appearently different. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 13:12, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

What do you want? You stated a question, you got an answer. German Wikipadia works like that, and in my oppinion it is also the right way. So the article about mobile phone is Mobiltelefon (24 900 000 hits) and not Handy (175 000 000 hits). -- Avron 19:40, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

Sorry. Maybe I have problems seeing it so black and white. In science and language a lot of things are dynamical. For example, in the beginning S.A.P. was an abbreviation, and a lot of people still think it is, but this word turned into a name when the company SAP made it theirs. Or the term "Auto". Long this has been an abreviation of "Automobil". But one day everybody in Germany woke up and it wasn't any more. But the Duden still states "Auto, kurz fur Automobil".

The term "Infografik" may have started as an abbreviation of Informationsgrafik, but one day it will be accepted as a normal term. Now the situation in Germany seems to be that the one term is generaly beeing used and the other isn't. Now I just wonder if the day hasn't arrived yet, that the term "infografik" is just an often used regular term? And who is to decide this?

I think you comparisment with handy and mobiltelefon is a little difference. The one term is beeing uses 7 times more then the other. Infografik is beeing used about 100 times more then the term Informationsgrafik. If the google rate is just 7000 this means to me the term is hardly in use. A search in Google books shows that the term is Informationsgrafik is used in 60 works (not all German), and Infografik in 334 books...!?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker 21:38, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

I think Infografik sounds a bit to casual and everyone knows that the right term for Info is Information. Information is also the right lemma not Info.--Ma-Lik ? /- 23:38, 28. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

Ok. Thanks. One other thing. There is a discussion started about the (international) category name in Wikicommons: Information graphics or Infographics, see here. Could the two of you also add your opinions about this on that page. Avron already gave his opinion about this on the Category talk:Infographics page, but it would help the discussion if you could add it to the "categories for discussion" page also. One way or the other, the more respons there the better. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker 00:16, 29. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

Comment. It sounds like the situation in German is similar to the situation in English. I am a native speaker of English and infographics is not a word I am likely to use in conversation. Even though Google results show that "infographics" is on more web pages than "information graphics", the word "infographics" is still not a commonly used word by most people.

"Graphics" is a word that people are familiar with in English. It is a very common word. See:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=graphics - 384 million results.

We might help people more by putting both names in the category and article names: "Information graphics (infographics)" or "Infographics (information graphics)". This will help people find what they are looking for via Google searches and browsing category trees. Most people will probably be looking for "graphics" though. --Timeshifter 00:23, 29. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

I think a redirect is better, but this is not the theme of this page.--Ma-Lik ? /- 00:26, 29. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

Yes, the category redirect is being discussed here:

commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics

It looks like an article redirect has been set up:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infografik - redirects to

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informationsgrafik

I prefer more info in article titles because it helps in Google searches. Google prioritizes info in titles. --Timeshifter 01:12, 29. Jul. 2008 (CEST)

Siehe auch: Gifografik

Habe den „Siehe auch“-Abschnitt, der nur einen Rotlink auf Gifografik enthielt, gemäß WP:SA komplett entfernt. Hier der bisherige Eintrag

• Gifografik, eine animierte Form der Informationsgrafik (Beleg: t3n.de)

falls jemand einen Hinweis auf Gifografiken an geeigneter (!) Stelle im Artikel einpflegen möchte... --rolf_acker (Diskussion • Beiträge • Logbücher) 12:55, 16. Nov. 2018 (CET)