USA Today Snapshots

USA Today runs an ongoing graphic called “Snapshots.” These are “easy-to-read statistical graphics that present information on various issues and trends in a visually appealing way.” There are four different categories for the snapshots: news, sports, money, and life. Each category has 20 different snapshot graphics at any given time. Each snapshot gives credit to the USA Today reporters who created it; each snapshot also lists the source for where the particular statistic for that snapshot originated. A new snapshot is posted to the website each weekday.

One thing I love about this information graphic is that there are so many different snapshots and they’re divided into categories based. Each graphic is simple to understand and visually appealing. The snapshots don’t provide a lot of information, but focuses on one key statistic and what it means.

Each snapshot conveys the statistic in a visually appealing way, although most of the artwork could be considered chart junk. This particular chart junk does not detract from the understanding of the graphic; it provides a visual incentive for viewers to spend a minute with the statistic. Another thing I like about these snapshots is that they also have a secondary statistic listed off to the side of the graphic. The secondary stat has a similar topic to the main statistic, but gives additional information. These stats are written out rather than represented visually, but it’s a nice contrast to the main statistic.

Each snapshot conveys something different. There’s a Life snapshot on losing weight to fit into jeans, a Money snapshot on how the economy affects Halloween spending, a Sports snapshot on how the Chicago Marathon has grown, a News snapshot on flu vaccinations, and many more. The wide variety of topics means these snapshots will appeal to a wide variety of people. Everyone who finds this graphic will take a few minutes looking over the information; the appeal for the snapshots is widespread.

I don’t think any context should be added to these snapshots. The strength of these graphics lies in their simplicity; adding more information would take away from that. 

Decision 2010

This interactive graphic appears on MSNBC’s website, but provides no credit for reporter or artist. The graphic also fails to specify when the graphic was created, posted, or updated.

I like that the graphic is an interactive timeline because it’s pretty rare; however, I’m not sure this was the best way to organize this information. While the graphic is easy to follow and navigate, the information along the timeline covers so many different aspects of so many different races. A timeline would have been a better choice for following the course of one campaign race over the last year. This graphic covers many different races in many different states, so the timeline does not provide any continuity for the information.

This graphic gives brief synopses of various campaign news stories over the last year. By clicking on a day, that particular synopsis pops up in the middle of the screen as larger text. The purpose of the graphic just seems to be a look back at some of the campaign stories over the last year that have led up to the November elections.

The graphic would be much more effective if the creator could have given the information some kind of continuity. Focusing on the timeline of one key race would have provided continuity. Focusing on the Democratic versus Republican chances over the last year would have provided continuity. Listing random summaries of many different races over a long time period provided no continuity for viewers.

Anyone interested in politics and the November elections would take a minute to look at this information graphic, but they probably wouldn’t look at it for very long. The information is too scattered for a person to find much of interest.

Bed Bugs

This graphic on bedbugs appeared on LiveScience.com. Karl Tate is credited with creating the graphic for the web site, and several sources are listed for the information.

The major strength of the piece is that it deals with a timely problem that people are hearing a lot about and becoming more and more worried about. Because of this, the general public will want to know more about bedbugs in general, and this graphic provides the basics. Another strength of the graphic was the artwork. One photo provided an enlarged image of a bedbug to show what they look like, and another image shows a colorized version which identified the eyes and the “proboscis” or feeding tube they use.

One of the weaknesses of the piece is that it doesn’t convey much information about how to kill bedbugs or what to do about them. The graphic does make it easier for the average person to be able to IDENTIFY a bedbug when they see it. This was a nice part of the graphic; for as much as I’ve heard about the current outbreaks, I had no idea what they looked like or how big they were. This graphic did provide that helpful information.

This graphic gives viewers a lot of basic information about bedbugs. It explains how bedbugs bite and feed, what they look like and what size they really are. The graphic also explains the life cycle of the bedbug and shows how their size changes after they feed.

I would have found it helpful to have a lot more information about where bedbugs have been found, how many, why and what to do to avoid them or get rid of them. However, I realize some of this information may not even be known at this point in time. The other information would be helpful to viewers, but I’m not sure it would really fit with this kind of graphic.

This graphic appeals to a wide variety of people because it’s on a topic that has been in the news a lot lately. People are concerned about the problem and want to know as much as they can about how to identify bedbugs. Any information or graphic will appeal to a large percentage of the general public.

The design is effective but a bit repetitive. The enlarged photo in the top right shows a bedbug up close, but it is merely used as chart junk to show the main body parts. Most of these parts are repeated in another image below that shows a look into the bedbug’s mouth. There seem to be so many mini-graphics in this one big graphic that all the subheads, text, and images get a little overwhelming and repetitive.

Fall Colors

This interactive graphic, “Fall Colors Depend on Weather Changes,” ran on USA Today’s web site. Credit for the graphic goes to Suzy Parker and Bob Swanson of USA Today.

One of the things I like about this graphic is that I can see all the information without having to click and navigate my way around several windows. All the information appears just by hovering my mouse over a particular word or image. This makes the interactive graphic much easier to navigate and more user-friendly.

One of the weaknesses of the piece was the accuracy of the colors used to portray the fall leaves. While I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a Dogwood tree in the fall, I have a hard time believing they turn a true blue/purple like the web colors shown. I know Oak trees don’t turn a true red that’s shown here. I don’t know much about colors on the web, but if they could make such a true and accurate green for the main leaves in the graphic, I would think they could make true and accurate fall colors as well.

Another weakness of the graphic is that it doesn’t really convey the information it’s trying to in the graphic. When I read the graphic headline, “Fall Colors Depend on Weather Changes,” I expect to find out how weather affects the colors. After reading the information two or three times, I finally found where they tried to explain it. The small text in “Early Fall” says, “With water and minerals cut off, leaves stop making green chlorophyll.” I know that green chlorophyll and photosynthesis is what makes leaves green, so I could make sense of this. I don’t think the graphic did a very good job of explaining the complicated process in laymen’s terms. And nowhere in the graphic did it explain why, how or when the water and minerals were “cut off.”

While the image of the cross section of a leaf impressed me, it didn’t really convey any useful information to help me understand. The entire graphic was pretty and colorful, and I enjoyed watching the leaves change colors as I moved my mouse around; however, most of the graphic was chart junk in that it was aesthetically pleasing but not very helpful.

I found the graphic interesting because I liked seeing which kind of trees turned which colors. As we’re preparing to build a new house, I keep thinking about which trees I will want in my new yard, so it was fun to look at fall colors.

However, most of this graphic contains information that most students learn in grade school. It’s pretty and fun, but not helpful or informational, especially since it didn’t mention the weather anywhere other than the headline.

Google car

Oct. 11-16

This information graphic on the new Google car ran on the New York Times online version and was posted on Oct. 10. The graphic gives credit to a photographer and explains the source for the information comes from Google. This is one of the few graphics I’ve seen that includes a Copyright.

This particular graphic is good in that it uses a diagram to depict the sensors on the car that allow autonomous driving. This is a good choice of the type of graphic to use because the main question most people are asking after first hearing about this Google car is, “How does it work?” This graphic visually conveys to readers how sensors on the car work.

While I don’t see any real weaknesses with the graphic, I do think it is missing some valuable information that would help viewers understand the new Google car. After viewing this graphic, I still have many more questions about the car: How and where was the car tested? What did the tests find? Is there video of the car driving itself? Does it HAVE to drive itself or is there a manual override? How long has this car been in the works? When do they plan to start producing the car? I think the graphic could have included at least some of these answers to better inform viewers.

The audience for this graphic is widespread because the Google car is such a new concept and everyone wants to know more about it. With such a new and innovative idea, the general public is very curious and will want to read and see anything they can about the new car and how it works.

The diagram of the car is an effective choice for this graphic as it answers the question most viewers will be asking themselves. It’s also a simple idea that centers on the car itself, which is the focus of the information. The blurbs are easy to read and he dotted line is easy to follow to see where that particular sensor is found on the car.

Key House Races

Oct. 11-16

This information graphic on “Key House Races in the 2010 Elections” ran on “The New York Times” web site. The graphic was posted on Oct. 11 and was created by Ford Fessenden and Haeyoun Park. The graphic cites several sources for their information, including Campaign Media Analysis Group, Sunlight Foundation, and the Federal Election Commission.

One of the strengths for this graphic is that it is organized in a way that prevents the tremendous amount of information from becoming too overwhelming. I particularly like “The Race in 30 Words” as it tells me very quickly the key details in each race without my having to take the time to interpret anything.

The graphic lists the key house races for the upcoming election. The information conveyed includes the location of the race, the Democrat and Republican on the ballot, their current job, how the incumbent voted on stimulus and health care, and how much money each candidate has spend on television advertising in the last six months.

The purpose of this particular graphic is to inform viewers quickly and simply what races could have an impact on Congress. Anyone interested in politics will be interested to see how an incumbent’s votes may affect the outcome of the election. Those who are voting in these key races will find it interesting to view “The Race in 30 Words” and how each candidate voted in the past.

One thing I don’t like about this graphic is that the races are sorted into confusing groups. One section is called “Obama’s Class of ‘08” and includes incumbents who were elected the same time as the president and voted with him on big bills. Another section includes newly elected Democrats who didn’t vote with the president on big bills. It seems like an odd way to organize the information.

I would have liked to see photos of the candidates as well. I’m sure each candidate has a press photo that would be easy to access and it would give viewers a visual with which to remember candidates.

The design is simple and effective. There is no chart junk used to distract viewers; instead, the graphic is focused on the information itself. However, the graphic has a lot of text and a few visuals might help draw in more viewers.

Anatomy of a Tragedy

Oct. 3-9

The interactive graphic “Anatomy of a Tragedy” ran on Newsweek.com beginning Oct. 4. A similar version of this graphic ran in the print version of Newsweek that same week. Jessica Bennett and Monica Parra are credited as Producers for the graphic. Design and Interaction credit goes to Parra, Sarah Frank took and created the video.

One of the strengths of this piece has to be that the information is presented in a visual way that is both appealing and helps aid viewer understanding. For instance, the profile section of the graphic includes a name, age, photo, and a brief account of the accusation and charges each faces. But it also provides a visual line graphic that shows how each person is linked. Click on “Ashley Longe” and you can not only see that she is a friend of Sean Mulvey, but you can see that Sean Mulvey had a brief relationship with Phoebe Prince and his on-again-off-again girlfriend is Kayla Narey. When there are so many people involved in a story like this one, this kind of visual key provides important connections that are otherwise difficult to understand. The graphic is organized simply and is easy to navigate from one section to another.

The graphic provides a lot of information and is organized into three sections: profiles, a timeline and a photo gallery. I’ve already discussed the profiles, but the timeline and photo gallery are just as good. The timeline is like a mini-video that shows photos and gives pieces of information in chronological order.

The audience for this graphic is widespread. The graphic will appeal to many people who have heard about this tragedy. I especially found it interesting as an educator who spends each day in the high school classroom.

The design of the graphic is effective. The black background creates a dramatic effect that adds to the dark subject of the graphic, while the faint and faded pattern keeps the black from becoming too overwhelming. The red accent on texts is also effective as it maintains the overall serious and angry mood of the graphic and story.

The graphic is interactive and very easy to use. Viewers can move back and forth between sections with ease and a simple click on a section or photo will provide additional information.

100 places

Oct. 3-9

This interactive graphic ran in Newsweek’s online site. The only credit given is a byline for Fareed Zakaria who wrote the introduction. Nowhere does the web site specify whether Zakaria designed the graphic as well, and there’s no mention of when it was posted.

The strength of this graphic is the incredible photography used to depict each of the 100 places. The quality of the photos will encourage viewers to keep looking through all 100 photos rather than just skimming through a few of them.

The main weakness of this graphic is the lack of information on each of the places. While each photo runs with a caption, it only provides a general location and explanation for why the place is interesting and why it’s endangered. Much more information could be provided for viewers, such as a specific sight at each place or more facts and figures. For instance, #23 is the Great Kordofan Region which “is the world’s biggest single producer of gum arabic,” but in the last “50 years, drought has taken a toll…on the production of gum.” I would like to know more facts and figures like how much gum arabic used to produced? How much is produced now during/after the drought? What is gum arabic used for? Adding this information would add a new dimension and context to the graphic that would inform viewers as well as interest them.

Because the graphic is self-admittedly an “arbitrary…and far from all-inclusive” list, this type of information would add some meat to Zakaria’s claims that these places are worthy of being on his top 100 list.

Another thing I would have liked to see with this graphic is to have the top 100 list organized in some way other than just geographic area. If Zakaria had rated them from 1 to 100, that would have provided an interesting way to view the photos as well. Since Zakaria admits in the introduction that the list is arbitrary, I don’t see that there would have been any harm in admitting a rating from 1 to 100 was arbitrary, too.

The graphic is conveying places around the world that could be on the verge of disappearing for one reason or another due to our endangered planet. While the graphic is short on figures and statistics, it does provide information on a variety of places around the world that many viewers may not know anything about.

Viewers who love to travel will be interested in this graphic. It would also appeal to photographers and those interested in the climate and global warming.

The design of the graphic is mediocre. I like that it shows a map of the world and that map is split into geographic regions with pinpoints for each of the 100 places. But the graphic is not easy to navigate. Clicking on a geographic location brings a pop-up box with the name of the area and a single photo. To view all the places in that geographic location, the viewer must click on the link. This opens a new window with the photos from that area, but the viewer must click on each link to see each separate photo. Not very user-friendly at all.

Education Graphic

Sept. 26 - Oct. 2

This information graphic on educational engagement can be found on the USA Today web site. The graphic gives credit to Ron Coddington, Anthony DeBarros and Chad Palmer of USA Today. The graphic also states that the information came from the National Survey of Student Engagement results.

One of the strengths of this graphic is the information it provides on where the statistics came from and how the data was gathered. This helps readers think critically about whether or not these numbers are believable and trustworthy. Another strength of the piece is that viewers can interact with the graphic and search for colleges with which they are familiar. If this graphic only included statistics on a few large universities that I’m not familiar with, the numbers don’t mean anything to me. Because I can search for colleges I do know, the graphic automatically becomes meaningful to each person who views it.

One of the weaknesses of the information graphic is that it makes it difficult to compare colleges. While I can view each college separately, there’s no way for me to view two colleges side-by-side to compare survey results. Providing the ability to compare two or more colleges would enhance the piece by providing more meaning to the statistics. Being able to compare colleges against each other would give more meaning to the numbers. The graphic does show the percentage for the selected school and for “institutional type avg,” but it doesn’t explain what the latter means. Average for that SIZE of school? Average for schools in that AREA? Average for schools that are undergrad only?

This graphic on education is showing viewers how engaged college students are in the classroom and in their education. The blurb at the top of the graphic says that it is showing “student involvement in key practices associated with learning, persistence and graduation” based on five benchmarks: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment. The graphic also compares how freshman students view their engagement in college compared to how seniors view their engagement in college.

Colleges who have filled out the survey will be interested to see how they compare to other schools (or institutional type averages, whatever that means). Educators will be interested to see if what they’re doing in the classroom is expressed through these student surveys.

The graphic design is clean and simple. Viewers can interact through the map for location, by alphabet or by institution type. Once a college is selected, the results appear to the far right of the graphic while still showing the search options. This makes it user-friendly as viewers can shift back and forth with ease.

Diabetes Drugs

Sept. 26 - Oct. 2

The “Diabetes Drugs” graphic ran in the online version of USA Today on September 27. The graphic credits Anne Godlasky of USA Today and says the information for the graphic comes from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

One of the strengths of this information graphic is its simplicity. The line chart is easy to understand and follow. The percentages on the left of the graphic are in increments of 10, which make it easy to read. The years at the bottom show 1997 on the left and 2007 on the right without trying to pinpoint a percentage for each year. Doing that would have made this graphic more difficult to understand. One of the weaknesses in this graphic is that each diabetes drug is given a different shade of pink, but the shades are close enough that it’s difficult to determine which shaded line goes with which shaded drug at the top of the graphic. Different colors all together would have made it easier to identify on the line chart.

Three types of diabetes drugs are given three different shades of pink in this information graphic. Each shade is then used as a line on a chart to show a rise or fall in prescription from 1997 to 2007. The graph is trying to show viewers that the drug Sulfonylureas, which used to be the mostly widely-prescribed diabetes drug, is now on the decline. The graph also shows that the other two commonly-prescribed diabetes drugs, Biguarides and Thiazolidinediones, are being prescribed more frequently now than they were 10 years ago.

A few explanations as to where these numbers came from would enhance this graphic. Where did the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality get these percentages? Did they ask doctors or patients or pharmicists? How many? Which ones? This could make a big difference in how accurate those statistics are in the graphic.

Anybody who is diabetic would look twice at this graphic because they have a vested interest. Doctors and others in the medical field would be interested in this information as well because it might signify new information that could impact their decisions. However, without knowing HOW these percentages were measured or sampled, the medical field should view them critically and not assume it’s fact and that all doctors should be prescribing these other types of drugs more often.

The simple design of the line chart is an effective presentation of the numbers. It’s easy to understand the key concepts without overwhelming viewers with too many numbers or variables. Different colors for each drug would make the graphic easier to understand at a glance without having to stare at three shades of pink trying to determine which is which.

Economic Outlook

This graphic ran on the USA Today web site. While it doesn’t have a date that it was created or posted, it does list the source of the information as HIS Global Insight. Barbara Hansen and Juan Thomassie are credited with creating the graphic.

One of the strengths of this graphic is the way it moves. I found myself clicking through the different indicators to see it. Without the movement, I’m not sure I would have been interested enough in the information to go through each indicator. Another strength of the graphic is that it does a good job comparing the HIS Global Insight Economic Outlook Index to the separate indicators. The bar graph is an easy visual tool to help viewers quickly grasp the general concept.

The information graphic is trying to show the economic outlook by comparing the GDP to its 11 component indicators. The interactive bar graph provides data from 2002 to the present in each. While I understand what this information graphic is trying to convey, I don’t know enough about the GDP to truly understand all this graphic. If the creators intended for this graphic to inform the average viewer, they should have included more explanations of the GDP and indicators.

For example, each indicator has something similar to a definition to explain it, and the creators did a great job of explaining “what it means” to the economy. However, I’m not entirely sure if the bottom bar graph that shows these indicators is a completely separate thing from the top GDP graph, or if the GDP graph is a composite of all 11 indicators, or if the GDP represents the “economic forecast” and the bottom graph shows the reality. Again, if the creators wanted this graphic to appeal to and explain information to the average viewer, they should have made it a little clearer to those of us who don’t have much of an economic background.

The design of the graphic is effective and helps viewers visually understand the overall concept. The bar graph was a smart decision to use when discussing amounts. It’s very easy to see the yellow bars above 0 show growth and the red bars below 0 show a drop in percentage. It’s also very easy to visualize how much or how little growth occurred from one year to the next with the bar graph.

The graphic is interactive in that viewers can click on each of the 11 indicators to see the definition and 8-year trend of each. The interactivity is simple to use and easy to understand.

Top 100 Countries

This information graphic appeared on Newsweek.com. Nowhere on the graphic or the page does it say when this graphic was created or posted (I saw it on Monday, September 20), but it does specify that it is a “Newsweek study” and that Thomas Klepl created the interactive design and programming, and Adam Clarkson wrote the creative lead. This shows that there was not one informational architect in charge of the graphic. Instead, the parts of the graphic were divided into a reporter and a designer.

One of the big strengths of this graphic is the column on the far right titled, “How to use this interactive.” This how-to list, gives five bulleted tips on how to use and understand the information in this graphic. Without these tips, the graphic would have confused me and I wouldn’t have known all the different types of information the graphic included. The weakness of the graphic is that the creators didn’t explain how they scored each of the countries. For instance, the Overall Education score for the United States is 89.44. The graphic also specifies that the Literacy Rate is 99.0% and the average years of schooling is 15.8. However, the graphic does not say how the score of 89.44 was figured. This failure to explain how Newsweek decided on the overall scores lessens the credibility of the information found in the graphic.

The information graphic is trying to convey the 100 best countries in the world based on education, health, quality of life, economic dynamism and political environment. The graphic also makes it easy to compare the scores of one country to another. It’s easy to compare low-income countries to high-income countries and small populations to large populations. The graphic even makes it easy to compare countries based on their geographic locations.

The graphic really needs to include the scoring system Newsweek used to create this graphic so viewers can truly understand how these scores came about rather than looking at what seem to be random numbers. Another thing that would enhance this informational graphic is a better way to see all of the scores and ratings for one country at the same time. Right now, if you click on a country in the interactive graphic, it highlights each overall score on the graphic, but it does not bring up the overall scores and information.

This graphic is interesting for people to compare places they have lived or want to live. There are people from all over the world who have commented on this graphic either praising the high ranking of their country or complaining the low ranking of their country. I think it’s also important to note that some people who commented also recognized that it’s very difficult to rate many items that depend on personal preference.

The design of this graphic is pretty effective with a lot of information in one place. A few additions (separate graphic for each country and explanation of the scoring system) would make this design even better. The explanation on the right of how to use this graphic is essential to viewer understanding. It makes the graphic easy to use and understand.

Interactive Poll on Drink Tax

This interactive poll ran on my local paper's website (http://www.enterprisepub.com/). This one, again, did not specify who created it or when, so I'm assuming the local newspaper staff did recently. I saw it on the website beginning September 14. However, I'm surprised at how often the graphics I see online don't mention who created them or when they were created. This is something I make my journalism students do all the time.

The strength of this piece is that it deals with a current and local topic that affects nearly everyone who will read this online paper. The photo that appears at the top of the poll is a visual that attracts viewers to the text below. The weakness of the piece is that, as a poll, it doesn't really impart much solid information. Some of the options to choose in the poll are not very helpful or informational. Some of the options are amusing, but they don't tell me how people feel about the topic. That should be the whole purpose behind an interactive poll.

This poll does inform viewers that there is a new city tax on dining, drinking, and catering, but most local viewers will already know that. This information graphic is short on the information end. Even an interactive poll can and should inform readers.

One way to enhance and improve this interactive poll would be to include better options for viewers to choose. Like I mentioned before, while some of the options are amusing, they aren't informative and don't tell us how people feel about the tax. Each of the six options is negative. While I agree it's safe to say that a vast majority of people are not for teh taxes, it defeats the purpose of an interactive poll to only show one side. Additional options that show a variety of opinions would enhance this graphic and make it more informational and accurate.

This interactive poll is intended for a local audience in a city just outside of Omaha because one of the options says, "Just another reason not to go to Omaha." The local online paper will draw mostly local readers.

The design of the poll is effective if not dazzling. The photo at the top of the poll draws attention, while the blue question stands out to viewers. The simple buttons on the bottom to "vote" or "view results" are simple and easy to understand and use. Overall, this is an example of a graphic that is "pretty" but has no useful information for readers. It was definitely not created by an information architect.

NU Husker football graphic

This graphic ran on the Omaha World Herald’s website on their “Big Red Today” link that covers all Nebraska sports. The graphic doesn’t specify a specific person who created it, but it does say that all information was based on Huskers.com rosters and local reports. It also doesn’t say when this page was created or last updated. The link was on the main Big Red page the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 14, but was moved later that evening when I looked again.

The strength of this piece is its simplicity and easy usability. The text on the left of the graphic does a great job of explaining what the information means, where the information is from and how to use the graphic to find what you want. The color-coding on the map gives viewers a quick idea of the information to be gathered. Another strength of the piece is the fact that you can interact with the map in three different ways: moving around the map, selecting the year, or searching for a name. This way, the graphic doesn’t overwhelm viewers with too much information at one time.

This graphic has so much information that, if done poorly, it would be completely overwhelming and confusing. This graphic is informing viewers about where Husker football players have come from since 1996. It shows that a majority of the players are from Nebraska, but that the Huskers have had football players from most states over the years. If viewers click on a state, they can see a secondary graphic that lists the players’ names, positions, heights, weights, hometowns and the year they began playing for Nebraska. If viewers click on a year, they can see a secondary graphic that shows the map for that year along with a list of the players and their statistics for that year. If you click on a specific player’s name, it even takes you to yet another graphic that shows you statistics and a photo of the player.

I’m not sure there’s much that good be added to this graphic. One thing they don’t have yet (but say they are working on) is adding a biography of each player. It would be nice to see a list of athletic and/or academic awards from high school and college, where they are now and what they are doing, etc.

Any fan of Husker football will find this graphic interesting. I found myself scrolling through states and years, remembering players I had forgotten and comparing heights and weights from some of the players I did remember.

This information graphic is designed very effectively. It is easy to understand and find the mountains of information in this one interactive graphic. Viewers will have no trouble navigating through the information. The usability makes this graphic effective. With the amount of information here, a bad design or bad organization would ruin it. It’s obvious someone who understands “information architecture” designed this interactive information graphic.

USA Today housing graphic

This information graphic appeared on the USA Today website on Aug. 25, accompanying a story on the decline of home sales. While it doesn’t specify who created the table, it tells readers that the source of the information is the National Association of Realtors. The website also says to contact Standards Editor Brent Jones for corrections or clarifications.

The strength of this information graphic lies in its simplicity. Readers can easily understand the information because numbers are labeled and aligned neatly. The lack of artistic design and visual appeal in the graphic might be considered a weakness. But the lack of visual gimmicks makes the graphic easier to read and understand.

The graphic shows how much home prices have dropped in the last year in major cities across the country. It also shows the drop in home sales over the last year in those major cities. The graphic contains a lot of information, but it is easily understood because of the organization.

Organizing the cities differently would enhance this graphic. Wurman mentions different ways of organizing information graphics in his article: location, alphabet, time, category and hierarchy. The designer of this graphic listed the cities in alphabetical order, but that would have been one of my last choices. The designer could have grouped cities based on location, so readers could compare cities in their region. The graphic could have organized the cities based on category by grouping cities whose home sale prices have dropped 0-2% and those that have dropped 2-4%, etc. The graphic also could have grouped the cities based on hierarchy, listing them from highest to lowest in terms of price drops over the last year. All these different organizations would allow readers to better compare the information.

Any readers interested in the economy or trying to buy or sell a home will look at this graphic when they come across it. While the graphic is not visually stunning, it presents such a wealth of information in such an understandable way that any average reader will spend a minute or two learning about the drop in home sales.

Because this information graphic is simple and easy to understand, it is an effective design. It would be even more effective with a little different organization, but it still explains the information sufficiently. This graphic is a great example of how the news and information (the narrative) should be the driving focus of a graphic rather than the visual gimmicks that are the focus of so many designers.

NY Times political graphic

This information graphic accompanied a story on the New York Times web site on Friday, Sept. 10. All the information graphics on this web page were created by the blog FiveThirtyEight, a blog “devoted to the rigorous analysis of politics…” Overall, this information graphic fails its purpose of explaining information in a way that the average reader can easily understand.

The information graphic has very few, if any, strengths. One of the weaknesses is that it doesn’t explain what the numbers along the bottom of the graph mean. I guess the numbers probably refer to the phrase “this many seats” written in the top left, but it makes very little sense in the context of this graphic. The main reason this information graphic is weak is because it fails to explain information in a simple way.

At first glance, it appears easy to read as a simple graph; however, after studying it at some length, I still can’t explain what it is trying to tell me. I believe the overall point of the graphic is to show that it is more likely the Republicans will control the House after the November elections. The graphic is very confusing because of the division between Republican and Democratic control at the bottom of the graph and the different shadings.

Focusing on only one political party in the information graphic would help eliminate this confusion. Another option would be to split it into two separate graphics. Because the division between Republican and Democratic control in the graphic confuses me, it would help if there were two separate graphics or only one political party.

Since the graphic has little to no explanation, the intended audience is probably readers who already know quite a bit about politics and the upcoming elections. Another reason I believe the intended audience is people who already know and are interested in politics is because there is very little artistic design to make the graphic appealing. Readers who aren’t interested in politics will not spend much time looking at or trying to interpret this information graphic.

The design for this graphic is not effective because it doesn’t help explain the information. Furthermore, there is nothing interesting or eye-catching about the design. While the focus should be a design that explains, the visual appeal of the design shouldn’t be ignored either. Unfortunately, this information graphic falls short on both design and information.