Picture This: Infographics 101
During the 4 months — and countless drafts — since I began work on the “All About EU” infographic project, I’ve had the privilege of dedicating hours of each day to playing with color palettes, sifting through veritable mountains of data on the EU, and thinking about… well, how I think! At the (tentative) end of my work on this project, I’d like to devote some space to acknowledging and sharing the advice I was given along the way, and recounting a few of the noticeable ways in which my work changed over this period.
What follows is a series of brief reflections on four of the infographics I created for this project, supplemented by images of draft progressions and my notes from meetings with UNC Data Visualization Services Librarian Lorin Bruckner.
The European Parliament
If you’re wondering why I started with the second of our published infographics, I invite you to review the… dramatic revision between the first and second drafts of this infographic (please, save the rotten fruit for your compost!).
As my first attempt at creating an infographic, this parliament-themed study had three major stages of development (though my files are littered with intermediate drafts). We might view each as a level in a hierarchy of graphic and rhetorical development.
For example, in the first draft (above-left), I was posing a question, and trying to answer it. However, like most publications, infographics need to have a firmer stance than asking. A form of graphic and verbal meaning-making (often persuasive), infographics need to make an argument or tell a story, as I learned through multiple conversations with Lorin. An infographic without a purpose is just words on, in, or around, pictures.
Because I wasn’t sure of what I was doing, the infographic was disjointed visually and rhetorically: I established two conflicting visual hierarchies, two different content focuses, and a visual identity based on a question (Hi, I’m the… Parliament?). Add to this the headache of learning to use an unfamiliar design platform, and it’s easy to see why we didn’t publish this one first!
In the second draft, you can see that I took the argument/narrative advice a little too much to heart — the title is definitely trying to force a story (one that a lot of people might doubt). However, there are some clear benefits to this approach: I was able to divide information into clear headings and establish hierarchy, and I had a focus to inform how and why I used icons. Already, by adopting a narrative framework for my design, I was starting to develop the basis of a visual identity.
However, that identity was still in its adolescence, which is clear from a comparison with the third draft. While there aren’t drastic changes in content or graphics, there are a number of small edits that provide evidence of a solidifying identity. For example, we see the emergence of a broad (and kinda catchy, if I say so myself) title, in conjunction with an updated call-to-action at the bottom of the page. Both of these changes result from another of wisdom from Lorin: know your audience. In the previous two drafts, I wasn’t really sure who I was talking to, whereas, by the third, I knew I was writing for someone who might encounter the infographic in a classroom or a presentation with very little prior knowledge, and who might want to look for more resources. This also helped direct minor changes, like bolding key points of body text, to ensure that a viewer — even if they only glanced at the image — might gain a general understanding of the institution presented.
The Lawmaking Process
In the progression of drafts for the Lawmaking Process infographic, you might notice different degrees of flow. In part, this is because I knew I wanted to design something that showed development, or movement. Most depictions of Ordinary Legislative Procedure take the form of flowcharts, so I was attempting to maintain this idea of progression while experimenting with form.
To start, I modified a credit card approval template, with limited success. The icons I used didn’t quite connect with the text, and while a viewer might notice some form of rhythm with the alternating curved lines or the gradient behind the stages, the overall design moved like a rusty door hinge. Likewise, the multiple hues and shades of blue, in addition to various drop shadows and weights of text, made it difficult to find and follow a hierarchy of information.
The major leap between the first two iterations of this design required parcelling information. The first draft really gave very little context, and about the same amount of content. The second draft provided a more developed approach — creating a substantial block of context allowed me to establish key actors and processes. Having set a foundation for the information, I was able to do the same for the design: I made a larger block to hold context and titles, or identity, which left a wide-open space to develop the more nuanced portion of my argument.
Moving from the second to third drafts, I worked on developing visual flow. The text explains the process well enough, but helping connect the textual idea of a cycle to a visual representation was a little more challenging. With some advice from a co-worker, I changed the tints of the stars to get darker with each step, helping establish the idea of this process occurring over time. Similarly, enlarging the arrows and centering the design around a circular icon all aided in developing the visual flow to match the words.
In short, this infographic sequence really helped me internalize the idea that more is less. In using subtler elements like shading and space to augment textual content, I was able to begin distilling the important elements of the project’s visual identity. This in turn provided a starting point from which to experiment and explore other visual techniques.
The Seven EU Institutions
In regards to the infographic focused on all the EU institutions, deciding what information to present was one of the most difficult stages of the project. For example, the first draft includes only a small blurb about each institution, along with a half-hearted attempt at color-coding (what can I say? It made sense in my head). Because I generally focus on broad connections, it was very difficult to focus on the small details that made each institution unique. Likewise, the form of the first draft attempts to differentiate the institutions with icons, but they largely fall flat.
However, with a tip from Lorin (“Have you seen those Pokemon cards…”) I gained a framework for providing more information while still focusing on themes. You’ll note that the color-coding remains throughout the designs, but is accompanied by a “category” of institution that corresponds. Similarly, the institution description are expanded, and the cards all have information about the institution’s founding date. Additionally, images help to differentiate the institutions visually.
Overall, this infographic was an exercise in seeking out existing media that had similar goals. In this case, using trading cards as a model helped to arrange information that developed each institution’s individuality while highlighting the differences and themes between them.
The Commission by Numbers
Unlike most of the other infographics in this series, the one about the Commission went quite smoothly (only 1 main draft!). Part of this is due to a shift toward the quantitative aspects of infographics, which I learned about from Lorin.
For context, infographics often incorporate more numbers. Numerical data are formatted in charts and graphs, and icons usually play a role in representing that data using various techniques. However, while there are troves of data on the EU institutions, a lot of it isn’t easily accessible to many audiences. Investigating the changes in representation in parliament over time could be a very fruitful undertaking, but that doesn’t necessarily tell us what the Parliament is. Since the goal of these infographics was to build up understanding of the institutions and their connections, intense quantitative data just didn’t make much sense for our target audience of high-schoolers, or community members who maybe didn’t know much about the EU. Instead, it was more helpful to utilize qualitative data to build a broad narrative about an institution.
In the case of the Commission, there was a nice overlap between numbers and narratives. In using numbers as focal points for information, we can use icons to illustrate knowledge about the structure and composition of the Commission. Furthermore, we can also expand upon those numbers with words to talk about its duties and relationships with other institutions and governments.
One of the main takeaways here is that numbers don’t always have to be complex, or “scary” math. Because infographics as a genre have a strong relationship with quantitative data, any “type” of number can be helpful to organize and present a story. In this case, simple integers were extremely useful in describing the Commission, and lent themselves to creating a story about the broad functions of the institution.
Another valuable lesson is to know your audience. Maybe you know them, or maybe you only have a hazy understanding of them — either way, format your infographic to cater to what they need. Some groups might benefit from visualizations of rigorous statistical analysis, and others might need more associations and verbalization. While there’s nothing wrong with either of these strategies on its own, if you don’t consider your audience, you might find yourself with a room of blank stares. And we certainly wouldn’t want that!
Interested in reading more about the work CES students do? Check out the Students tab on our blog!
Curious to see our other infographics? Head over to the Infographics tab on our blog!
This post was produced by EURO major Brett Harris.
This post’s production was supported by a 2018–2021 Jean Monnet Center of Excellence grant from the European Union.
The European Commission’s support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
