Above: The New York Times, from the United States, uses old-style design elements to convey an image of tradition. The Times keeps its overall look since its beginning, making only small changes from time to time. The last one, in 2003, implemented Cheltenham as the main typographic family. Tom Bodkin, assistant managing editor and design director of The Times, declared that their goal with the change was to “enhance legibility and bring a more orderly look to the pages while preserving the ability to convey a clear hierarchy of news values. We wanted to appear traditional but less old-fashioned.” (here)

Above: Portugal’s i takes the opposite approach. Instead of building its credibility through a traditional look, the Portuguese paper invests in modern-looking features for a digital-era audience. Peter Preston, who was editor of the Guardian for 20 years, called i the newspaper of the future, and “one of the world’s most innovative (and immediately successful) papers” (here)

In the same way as other information graphics, maps also take part in building the image of the publisher/author. The chosen projection, colors, typography, and other graphic elements can make a map look serious, fun, modern, or traditional. The credibility of a map depends, among other factors, on its overall image. A map that looks scientific or academical may seem more accurate than a map that looks flamboyant or sloppy.

This example shows two maps of Wonderland, from the book Alice in Wonderland. Above, the map uses a schematic configuration and flat color blocks, which gives it a technical character.

Below, the map uses texture, illustrations and a script typeface, which gives it a storybook-like quality. While the first map looks like an accurate tool for orientation, this map looks like it is part of a narrative, even though they have basically the same spatial information.

West Wing, US TV series, discussing the Mercator vs. Peters projection issue, with a hint to the “North-up” convention issue. Cool.

While tables are usually read linearly item by item, graphics are read holistically, as a whole. That makes tables appropriate for displaying specific data, but not for showing comparisons and relationships, which are clearer in graphics.

In a case where the publication is interested in de-emphasizing or even conceal relations —in an annual report, for instance—it is better to show data in a table than in a graphic, where comparisons are clearer. 

This information design piece shows the production of corn in Munchkin farmers—characters from children’s tale The Wizard of Oz—from 1895 to 1902. Both the table and the line chart show the same data, but the acute decrease in production in 1900 is much more visible in the chart.

A review of this line chart can reveal another rhetorical device: the use (or lack) of context. The chart on the left shows the severe decrease in corn production in 1900 and nothing else. The chart on the right shows the context of the fact. By showing how the production of other crops (rye, wheat) was constant throughout those years, the chart makes it clear that the decrease in corn production was caused by a factor that did not have an effect on other crops. The insertion of a caption describing the events of 1900 (how Dorothy removed the Scarecrow from the fields and took him to the Emerald City with her, leaving the crops to the mercy of crows) adds further context, connecting the events to the drop in corn production in a cause-effect relation.

The use of comparison brings context to data, and it can reveal aspects that would remain hidden otherwise. In the same way, the use of captions and label should be done cautiously, for it can change the perception of the data completely.

One way to hide data in a chart is in the scale. By blowing up the scale, it is possible to conceal variation in the data. In this example, the two bar charts show the production of poisoned apples through the years of the Evil Queen’s tyranny, being year 4 the point where Snow White was hiding in the dwarfs’ house.

This chart’s vertical axis show values from 0 to 400. The number of apples produced is so small comparing to those values, that the bars almost disappear, becoming lines. It is hard to visualize even major changes. Looking at this chart, the viewers may assume the conflict between Snow White and the Queen had no influence in the production of poisoned apples.

The vertical axis on this chart, on the other hand, shows values between 0 and 8 (8 being the value of the bar on the far right). Using this scale, it is clear that the production of poisoned apples increased significantly in year 4. From this chart, the viewers may deduce that the Queen’s vendetta against Snow White affected directly the production of poisoned apples.

These area graphs represent the changes in the population of dwarfs and deers in the Enchanted Forest through the years of the Evil Queen’s tyranny. They are placed side-by-side so viewers can easily compare the development of both species.

The most predominant elements are the green and blue areas. By glancing at the areas, the viewers can see that the quantity of dwarfs increased, while the quantity of deers decreased, which is correct. But a quick glance may also leave the viewers under the impression that there are far more dwarfs than deers in the forest. The actual numbers, however, are seven dwarves against 1.100 deers. This fact is not clear, though, because of the difference in the scales. The vertical axis of the left-side chart shows values from 0 to 7, while the one on the right side goes from 600 to 1500.

When comparing charts, unconformity in scale might be misleading, even the charts themselves being accurate.