Jump to content

Talk:Infographic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Information graphics)

Problems

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

images to incorporate from commons

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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: latitud
  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?

[edit]

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)[reply]

deleted link... move somewhere else?

[edit]

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

Permission to Contribute

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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).[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 [email protected]. Perhaps, I can send you my books and get your thoughts. 68.100.249.171 14:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why do we need the terms "Information graphics" or "Infographics"? What do they denote that is not already encompassed by existing terms such as "chart," "graph," "diagram," "illustration," etc.? Nothing, it seems. If the new term(s) do add something, then the opening paragraph of this Wikipedia entry should explain what. Otherwise, the new terms are just creating noise/confusion. (And why do we need to employ two words--"information graphics" --or join two syllables--"infographics"--when one will suffice--"graphics"? In other words, what does "information" add that "graphics" does not already convey?) I suggest that a broad enough term already exists to encompass all concepts that the new term(s) appear likely to comprise: The existing phrase is "illustration." Jeff10706 (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to strongly disagree with Jeff: "illustration" and "graphics" convey a much different concept. While the boundaries are not clearly delineated, "illustration" connotes pictures, story-telling, to go along with text to "illustrate" the story, context, idea, etc. "Graphics" are often icons, layout, and similar design elements. Infographics have come to represent a rather specific form of conveying information - often including a systems visualization or depiction of a cycle; and/or several charts or diagrams around the same topic; and a brightly-colored or eye-catching design to convey a lot of information quickly. So, the purpose and associations of the words are very different. Trying to collapse them into a single category is like saying there's no need to have names for the different types and categories of trees, insofar as they're all "trees." ChatterbotALICE (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infographics are commonly used by businesses for advertising and by non-profits for spreading awareness. It would help to provide context if there was more information on the role infographics have come to play in social media, business and advertising. ChatterbotALICE (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Types of Graphics

[edit]

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).[reply]

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

Unreferenced

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

cross-reference with sparklines

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Are all graphs and charts considered to be infographics?

[edit]

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:

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

"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:

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'll shoot from the hip with my opinion, because I think with a 21st century TransfusiontermTM 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)[reply]
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="information graphics" 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)[reply]
@ 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I apologise in advance: this post contains some sarcasm. What did you think they were going to say Timeshifter? "Infographics is this bogus term we thought up so we can sell more trendy sounding books to clueless journos. We're going to say that everything is an infographic so we sound more important (and thereby sell more books). Mwahahahaha..."?
I've said it before but I'll elaborate just for fun. I don't think a table is a graphic. I'd go as far as to say that it is quite obviously and blatantly not a graphic in any way, shape or form. That said, if the infographists repeat the mantra charts, graphs, maps, diagrams, and tables often enough I'm sure everyone will end up believing them anyway so we may as well be at the front of the herd.
The claim about scientific journals is a joke. What link is there between cave art, misleading journo statbabble and scientific journals? None, I hope, although one and two have similar levels of utility. There is no scholarly usage of the term "infographic". This is a completely bogus claim. I can be quite certain about that, having spent five years recently getting a PhD and getting published. So I stick by no art, no science, no engineering.
I didn't realise the close link between infographics and journalism. Suddenly the shockingly poor quality of statistics and graphs in popular publications makes sense. It's because of the name :) Dhatfield (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*removes foot from mouth* Oops. I just realised this article is within Wikiproject:Journalism. To all journalists: please don't take offense, but next time you report the results of a survey, please report the sample size. Dhatfield (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not justifying the use of the term. I am only explicating it. "Information graphics" is a widely used phrase. The article is titled "Information graphics". I am only using "infographics" because I don't want to type out "information graphics". I bet that is how many new terms are created over time. I consider many of the graphics in many scientific journals to be crap, too. And even more poorly explained than some of the ones in general circulation magazines. Speaking of graphics, let us bash some of the clueless nerds that have the audacity to call some of their work a "graphical user interface" (GUI). But I digress... ;)
Graphs and graphics have many meanings:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:graph
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:graphics --Timeshifter (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pah! GUIs are for wusses. Real men do it on the command line - not very comfortable ;)
I was raging against the machine, but truly, there is no 'information graphics' in computational fluid dynamics, CAD, or scientific visualisation. To state otherwise is marketing fairy-dust. To fall back on Google searches is a little weak. For example, 'Information graphics' and 'Table of contents' (and hence 'table') appear together quite a lot. Dhatfield (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific American manages to put some comprehensible graphics in their magazine. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three different definitions in Wikipedia

[edit]

At the moment there are now three definitions of infographics in Wikipedia and Wikicommons:

In this article, in the category and in commons]:

  1. Information graphics or infographics are visual representations of information, data or knowledge. These graphics are used anywhere where information needs to be explained quickly or simply, such as in signs, maps, journalism, technical writing, and education.
  2. Information graphics, infographics are visual representations of information, data or knowledge. Also known as Information Visualization (InfoVis).
  3. Information graphics include signs, charts, graphs, diagrams, maps, tables, labeled drawings, etc.. Almost any illustration or animation that has elements of abstract information in it. Photos and drawings of objects, or photos from nature (such as plant, bird and animal drawings), are not considered information graphics unless there is an overlay of abstract information combined with them. Art and cartoons are not infographics.

There is a conflickting situation here, because all point at different directions.

Now the difference is in the second part:

  1. signs, maps, journalism, technical writing, and education.
  2. information visualisation
  3. signs, charts, graphs, diagrams, maps, tables, labeled drawings.

I think this is confusing situation which we should avoid. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 definitions sound the same to me. I think you are confusing where the graphics are used with what information graphics are.
"...used anywhere where information needs to be explained quickly or simply, such as in signs, maps, journalism, technical writing, and education." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused indeed:
  • The first definition stated "infographics are used ... in maps"
  • The third definition states "infographics include ... maps"
I think this is just confusing for everybody. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are both true. Maps are infographics in themselves, and they also include other infographics such as tables of cities, locator diagrams, north-south orientations, map scales, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, with that last remark I was mistaken. The problem remains with the scope of infographics and its relations. In stead of speculating about ourselves, I think, we should reference the questionable statements.
In the field of visualization a lot of terms seems to have a broad and specific meaning, like diagrams, computer graphics, scientific visualization... and now here with infographic. I think you have used the term infographic on Commons in a broad sense, which is your wish. I am particularly interested in the specific meanings, because these need to be explained in the Wikipedia articles. In Wikicommons however I am also using the term diagram in a broad sence, for example with the development of the Category:Medieval diagrams.
For me it is important that those things are going to be explained. In my opinion the term inforgaphic is used in three different ways, in the three examples I summarized here. Now one of my target is to make a note about this, in this article based on reliable sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree for the most part. I don't think art such as these non-labeled art images qualify as diagrams or information graphics under any definition though:
Image:Fortymartyrs.jpg
Image:Arabischer Maler um 1180 001.jpg
Image:Ein Engel versperrt die Pforten der Unterwelt mit einem Schlüsel.jpg
They are in commons:Category:Medieval diagrams.
Maybe an additional category called Category:Medieval illustrations might help? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also think we agree on most parts. I have explained my plans according to the history of diagrams on here, and will answer you last question there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main Wikicommons Category:Infographics renamed without any discussion

[edit]
The start of this talk item is copied from Wikicommons Category talk:Infographics

User:Timeshifter has renamed Category:Infographics overnight on his own to Category talk:Diagrams Category:Information graphics, claiming this first was a bad name. The thing is that both names are common good. I think changing the one to the other should be talked about first? Isn't there a procedure here? Could somebody take a look at this? Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Category talk:Diagrams. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This next items was Timeshifters response on the Wikicommons Category talk:Diagrams page
This is silly. Categories are frequently renamed for clarity, spelling, grammar, etc.. This happens all the time. You didn't ask permission to create the categories and galleries you have created.... Timeshifter (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please discuss this subject here? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad reason

[edit]

It seems to me that the category has been renamed for the wrong reason. User:Timeshifter names "bad name", but seems nothing bad about this name "Infographics". It is a common name. This name seems even more familiar then "Information graphics". I googled both terms and found:

  • Infographic - 801.000 google rate
  • Infographics - 723.000 google rare
  • "Information graphic" - 134.000 google rate
  • "Information graphics" - 207.000 google rate

It seems logical to prefer the term infographics above information graphics. I will copy this argumentation to the Wikipedia page, and hopefully get some more response over there. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those numbers I wonder why this Wikipedia article is named "Information graphics" and not "Infographics". -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need the terms "Information graphics" or "Infographics"? What do they denote that is not already encompassed by existing terms such as "chart," "graph," "diagram," "illustration," etc.? Nothing, it seems. If the new term(s) do add something, then the opening paragraph of this Wikipedia entry should explain what. Otherwise, the new terms are just creating noise/confusion. (And why do we need to employ two words--"information graphics" --or join two syllables--"infographics"--when one will suffice--"graphics"? In other words, what does "information" add that "graphics" does not already convey?) I suggest that a broad enough term already exists to encompass all concepts that the new term(s) appear likely to comprise: The existing phrase is "illustration." ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff10706 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion

[edit]

commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/Current requests/2008/07/Category:Information graphics --Timeshifter (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

We need a better image than that DC map to represent infographics. I say "better" because the DC map has only a few variables, compared to other, richer maps. The DC map contains: line colour, stop name, relative stop location, some municipal boundaries and names. I propose we change the image to the Cincinnati transit map because it contains more variables in a smaller space. It therefore is relatively richer in information than the DC map, and a more effective example of an infographic. The variables it contains are: line name, line frequency both relative and absolute, neighborhood boundaries, zone boundaries, area characteristics(park, city, or institution), transit hubs, street names, bus speed(in the "timepoints"), travel time(from "timepoints" and frequency), and business districts. Also, by incorporating the ten-minute "timepoints" it gives the reader an idea of geographic distortion, something the DC map fails at, since DCs central stops are much closer together than people using the map would suspect.Bike756 5:42, 6 March 2012

While I agree that the Cincinnati map is packed with more information, I'm not sure it is better as an iconic image for the lead paragraph of this article. As a thumbnail 250 pixels wide, the DC Metro map reads pretty well as a representative infographic. As a 525 pixel wide preview it is perfectly legible. The Cincinnati map, on the other hand, needs much more enlargement before all that information is usable. As a poster on a wall, or on a large screen, it shows a lot, but at thumbnail size, it reads as a pastel blur. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Still, I'll say we need something better. The DC map is little more than a diagram. How about we bump up one of the classics like the Nightingale rose chart or the Minard Napoleon march? We could also enlarge a slice of the Cincinnati map which does indeed look better up close. Bike756 —Preceding undated comment added 02:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

A diagram is an infographic; what "more" is needed? The DC Metro map is sparser than some, but appropriately so, considering its purpose and intended audience. See cartographic generalization. An image easily recognizable as a metropolitan transit schematic seems fitting in the lead paragraph of this article. Those classic images fit well in the history section... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. No explicit opposition to the suggested target. DrKay (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information graphics → Infographic – These are referred to as infographics in the field of journalism. [2], [3] Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Extensive Edits

[edit]

I have just worked with two other people to do extensive edits to this page. Here is a summary of what we did:

1) The History section was regrouped into Early Infographics, 20th Century, and 21st Century. The Modern Practitioners section was deleted and that information was added to the history section. Most of the information in the History sections was heavily edited (for grammar and organization) and added to in some places. Some irrelevant or extraneous information was deleted. The previous organization just seemed slightly disjoint, and we felt it would be more cohesive with this reorganization.

2) The Information Graphics Subjects section was deleted, as well as Visual Devices. Both of these headings seemed a bit unclear, and relevant information was put into other sections. Elements of Infographics was significantly added to and made into a main section.

3) A section was added for Data visualization in Infographics since data visualization is commonly used in infographics. Several pictures were added here as examples (all from Wikimedia Commons)

4) A section was added for Infographic Tools, since there are so many of these available today

5) Many references were added

6) A few external links were deleted that seemed irrelevant or inappropriate.

Please let us know what you think of these edits, we are hoping that everyone will like them. We feel that they really helped to flesh out this article and improve the organization.

Debralynng (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infographic resumés

[edit]

I removed content about infographic resumés since it was supported only by commercial web sites or primary sources (actual resumés). I think this would be a useful addition to the article but it needs good, non-commercial secondary sources. I am uneasy with linking directly to individuals' resumés and think we should link to a reliable, external list of example resumés instead. I also think we should add a section on Applications where this use and others could be described. Jojalozzo 18:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edugraphic fork?

[edit]

A user has created a new article titled Edugraphic. It looks to be a fork of this article. Can some editors familiar with the subject take a look at that article and see what attention it needs? —C.Fred (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a poorly written article unduly promoting the usage of the term without adequate citation. Any useful, non redundant content from reliable sources should be merged here with a redirect.--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Edugraphic

[edit]

Edugraphic as currently written is unduly promoting usage of the term while admitting it is not in wide usage, and thus may not be a notable topic. Additionally, the term is defined so vaguely as to include potentially any image in a textbook. If edugraphic is found to be a distinct thing, then develop it as a subset of Infographic with reliable sources and only split if its size and/or distinctness eventually requires it. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

second that motion. -- Kku 12:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
third the motion-- February 2nd 2015
I am not agree at all with the merge motion. Infographics at the classroom are ways of visualization who must be mastered by students. Infographics are new way to learn how to express ideas and then let students to develop new cognitive model. In sum are not a outcome valuable itself, they are a new way to learn to understand reality. MA Perez 22 May 2015
I also disagree. Edugraphics has a distinct pedagogical element which does not feature in Infographics. I shall remove the the merge box as this is now months old and --Animalparty-- has been improving Edugraphics.Leutha (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infographics without graphical information

[edit]

There is a new fashion of posters referred to as "Infographics" but which in fact do not use graphics to convey information and thus do not appear to conform to the definition of Infographic presented in this article ("graphic visual representations of information, data or knowledge intended to present complex information quickly and clearly"). I've tried to find discussion of this extension of the definition online, but failed to find any notable source. Here are some mentions of this issue from non-notable sites (please add anything more informative):

The reason I'm bringing this up is that an image of this sort has been used as an example on this article for a long while (a political pamthlet added on 15 September 2013‎ by Ryomaandres):

I removed this image, since I believe it does not agree with the text at all. An option I could see as reasonable is to add a new section to the article discussing these kinds of posters that convey non-graphical information as falling under a broader definition of "Infographic". This new section would need to contain notable references that refer to a broadening of the definition.

"Six by nine. Forty two." (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infographic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Infographic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Infographic&oldid=1263699661"