Ornating information: information is political, in the way we use it.

Nice debate about information graphics.

joanafilizola:

INFOGRAPHIC PRINTS (via information aesthetics)

Take a look at these images from Jornal Nacional, the main TV news program in Brazil. Two nights ago, they announced the US$/BRL rate had dropped. They used a line chart. The angle of the line is big. Major drop? No. It was a 0,05% drop (from 1,723 to 1,722).

Then last night, it was up. A much bigger difference, at +0,34%. The line chart? It is there. The angle of the line? The same.

Conclusion? It is not a line chart. It indicates just a binary information: if the rate is up or down. Isn’t the up/down arrow already doing exactly that? So why use a line-graphic-like image, that implies the idea of “angle=quantity of change”?

Earlier in the week:

The Adidas 2008 annual report portrays an image of modernity, technology and constant movement, present in all the graphic elements. One factor contributing for the idea of movement is the use of arrowheads in the bar charts. Applying the arrows—also used in photographs and other graphical elements throughout the publication—to the bars not only convey movement, but also the idea that the bars are expanding in the direction the arrows point to. This way, even though the charts show accurate numbers, it looks like the variables—development, sales, income—are increasing.

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.

The chart on the left has an illusion of three-dimensionality, which misrepresents the data. The areas of the top (the actual pie chart) are distorted, and the segments in the front—Drizella, the Duchess, and especially the Countess—are magnified. The Countess has more visual importance than Cinderella, which is on the back, even though Cinderella danced with Prince Charming for longer (30% for Cinderella and 20% for the Countess).

On the right, a flat pie chart is a better representation of the actual numbers, making it easy for the viewers to compare the areas and notice that Cinderella spent more time dancing with Prince Charming than any other girl.

The use of illustrations in charts—instead of bar or lines—might change the perception viewers have of the information. When the value in the chart is represented by length, the use of size-changing figures is a problem, because they add the dimension of width. That is, instead of comparing lengths, the viewers are led to compare areas, which is a distortion of the linear data. Even further, the viewers have a three-dimensional notion of the illustrated object, which may increase their perception to volumes. Therefore, a growth of 2 times may be seen as a growth of even 8 times.

The example shows the relation between the production of hats by the Mad Hatter (from Alice in Wonderland) and the amount of sugar he consumed in his tea. In the chart on the left, the amount of produced hats is shown with an illustration representing a hat, while the amount of sugar is represented by an illustration of a spoon. The charts compare data from two days—Saturday and Sunday—in order to establish a relation between the sugar and production of hats.

So that the figures are not distorted, they change not only in length but also in width from Saturday to Sunday. That way, the Sunday looks enormous comparing to the previous one, which makes it look like the growth in hat production was a lot bigger than the actual 50%. And, since the hat is rather wider than the spoon, its change in area from Saturday to Sunday is more ostensible. It might cause the impression that the production of hats has grown more than the consumption of sugar, even though they have grown in the same rate.

So that the use of illustrations does not distort the data, the focus should be on only one dimension. Instead of using the size of figures to compare amounts, the chart can employ repetition of same size icons. The chart on the right is more accurate, for it utilizes repetition of figures. The spoons and hats occupy the same width, which brings the focus to the changes in length.  

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.