Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ingrafx
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:45:11 -0500
From:         JBK5@PSUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Regarding "Bad" Graphfx

>Although I don't want to waste bandwidth, I must repsond to what
>jb krygier of penn state said about USA TODAY's (cutesy graphics).
>I use to create infographics for that paper. Currently I am teaching
>and finishing my teaching degree at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana.
>Anyways, the point I wish to make is that infographics in the press is a
>serious industry. I am currently teaching a class in visual reporting. This
>class does not teach drawing, and it isn't desktop publishing 101. Instead,
>I focus on accuracy, reserach, and the reporting aspects of information.
>I have read Tufte, Huffe, Holmes and Monmonier. I have noticed that there
>is a bad tendancy among academia to disregard and look down upon what is
>being done in newspapers. This is a shame. There are people who are
>concerned with accuracy. I'm sorry, but the boring graphics that are found
>in academic journals will never cut it in a newspaper. I don't advocate doing
>graphics in the USA TODAY style (which I personally think is a little too
>artsy) but then again I don't advocate doing boring graphics. I aslo stress
>that just because one knows how to chart on the Mac, that doesn't make you
>a graphics reporter.  Sorry for the soapbox

...and i wish i could disagree with you but i don't.  there are obviously
many newspapers and magazines which do very interesting and top notch
information design.  one can find real stupid graphics also - our local rag
has some of the most vapid graphics i have ever seen.  the same can be said
for "academic" graphics.  there are some academic information designers who
are good at creating interesting, well designed work (and i have had the
privilege of working with some of them).  however, it seems that two factors
have lead to the obvious dull nature of many academic information graphics.
first, most are created as afterthoughts ("oh, i guess i should have a
pie graph in this presentation") on canned software or by graphics labs
who are offered little if no compensation for the work. little chance for
much innovation here.  this is a problem with people not knowing how to
take advantage of graphics and not making them an integral part of their
research and presentation (graphic illiteracy).  on the other hand, academic
cartography, for example, has evolved away from design and towards other
aspects of mapping - automation, analysis, etc.  research on design has focused
on psychological evaluation which has in some cases provided useful design
guidelines but in others has lead to conclusions which encourage dull,
simple, bland graphics (the map user is not particularly bright; the map
has to look objective and nice design may be masking opinion or subjectivity,
and other silly concerns). the biggest problem is that design of any
info graphic is primarily a function of creativity and the hard to tack
down "graphic sense."  it can't be done particularly well in any
mechanistic manner.  this all loops back to the "graphic illiteracy" problem.
it could be argued that by focusing on training cartographers to be
cartographic technicians/managers/software developers/academics, academic
cartography has failed to adequately show non-cartographers the value of
graphics.

so i will now get off my soap box...

any opinions? how far off am i this time?

jbk


   ' . ' ' '  .'.'.'..''.'.'..''..'.'.'.''..'.'...''...''' '  . '   '  .
 '    . '..'.'jb krygier    penn state encampment of geography . ' '  .
 .  ' ' .'.. 'jbk5@psuvm.psu.edu          blaise@.essc.psu.edu .'. ' '
   '  '   ' '..'..'...'.''...'.'.'.'...'.'.'''.'.''.'.'.' . .  ' .  ' '
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)