<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The New York Times&#8217; impressive infographics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/</link>
	<description>How to live and work as a designer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:51:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chloe</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-21639</link>
		<dc:creator>Chloe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-21639</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I want to design infographics!  I am finisshing up an Environmental resource management degree, but infographicsw is where it is at. Where do I even begin?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to design infographics!  I am finisshing up an Environmental resource management degree, but infographicsw is where it is at. Where do I even begin?</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-20945</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 17:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-20945</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I was looking at your site, and found this entry about graphs.  I think most agree that the whole purpose of a graph is to quickly convey or highlight information...kind of bullet point an article.  Which is why when I saw the second graphic you reference I was very surprised to see the word &quot;Terrorism&quot; was highlighted by a pink dot, and mentioned so very seldom in the President&#039;s speeches.  I was so suprised I decided to check it out.  I did a quick search and found the complete text to the state of the union for 2005 on an MS NBC site (link below), and did a quick search.  Indeed the word &quot;Terrorism&quot; is mentioned only one time.  However, if you use the root word &quot;terror&quot;, you&#039;ll find it&#039;s mentioned ** 27 ** times.  Why did they leave that out?  They used alternate spellings to find &quot;Iraq&quot; and &quot;Economic&quot; themes in the speech.  Then I thought, maybe they just wanted to exclude &quot;war on terror&quot; because it&#039;s kind of a catch phrase.  However, only 3 instances were found to be part of the catch phrase &quot;war on terror&quot;.  Then I thought, maybe they just used a different method than I did, and all the entries are off.  Nope.  They all seem to match what I found.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I didn&#039;t research all other state of the union addresses.  I&#039;ve no doubt that since the error was not in there method, it was in their word choice, I would find the same results.  I honestly don&#039;t have the time for all that effort.  I don&#039;t think there&#039;s any mystery re: why the NY Times did this.  I look at this, and it&#039;s clear the highlighted pink dots are meant to show me that the president is not focused on the war on terror.  He&#039;s only concerned about Iraq.  Maybe it&#039;s just a simple mistake...but I doubt it...especially with the extra highlighting.  Regardless, I think it&#039;s relevant to this site to point out how careful you have to be with your graphics.
 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6902913/print/1/displaymode/1098/).&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was looking at your site, and found this entry about graphs.  I think most agree that the whole purpose of a graph is to quickly convey or highlight information&#8230;kind of bullet point an article.  Which is why when I saw the second graphic you reference I was very surprised to see the word &#8220;Terrorism&#8221; was highlighted by a pink dot, and mentioned so very seldom in the President&#8217;s speeches.  I was so suprised I decided to check it out.  I did a quick search and found the complete text to the state of the union for 2005 on an MS NBC site (link below), and did a quick search.  Indeed the word &#8220;Terrorism&#8221; is mentioned only one time.  However, if you use the root word &#8220;terror&#8221;, you&#8217;ll find it&#8217;s mentioned ** 27 ** times.  Why did they leave that out?  They used alternate spellings to find &#8220;Iraq&#8221; and &#8220;Economic&#8221; themes in the speech.  Then I thought, maybe they just wanted to exclude &#8220;war on terror&#8221; because it&#8217;s kind of a catch phrase.  However, only 3 instances were found to be part of the catch phrase &#8220;war on terror&#8221;.  Then I thought, maybe they just used a different method than I did, and all the entries are off.  Nope.  They all seem to match what I found.</p>

<p>I didn&#8217;t research all other state of the union addresses.  I&#8217;ve no doubt that since the error was not in there method, it was in their word choice, I would find the same results.  I honestly don&#8217;t have the time for all that effort.  I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s any mystery re: why the NY Times did this.  I look at this, and it&#8217;s clear the highlighted pink dots are meant to show me that the president is not focused on the war on terror.  He&#8217;s only concerned about Iraq.  Maybe it&#8217;s just a simple mistake&#8230;but I doubt it&#8230;especially with the extra highlighting.  Regardless, I think it&#8217;s relevant to this site to point out how careful you have to be with your graphics.
 (<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6902913/print/1/displaymode/1098/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6902913/print/1/displaymode/1098/</a>).</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jena</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-20008</link>
		<dc:creator>Jena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-20008</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Michael, thank you for the link. That list will certainly help me get started!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, thank you for the link. That list will certainly help me get started!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-19832</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:47:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-19832</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The New York Times does deserve credit for producing consistently high-quality infographics, especially on a tight schedule, and I&#039;m glad you featured them here, Chanpory. They could certainly be improved, but I think that even after a quick read, the general data comparisons come across.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So is there a hidden agenda? Does applause really correlate with approval? Does word frequency equate to importance? The story depends on how you read the data and what questions they answer or raise. I don&#039;t know if there is a clear enough viewpoint supported here.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Jena: Sadly, not many programs in information design exist. Reading books, taking courses, and tackling information design problems that interest you are some ways to get started. Here&#039;s a collection of links which might be useful:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;http://understandinglab.com/IDresources/IDresources.html&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The New York Times does deserve credit for producing consistently high-quality infographics, especially on a tight schedule, and I&#8217;m glad you featured them here, Chanpory. They could certainly be improved, but I think that even after a quick read, the general data comparisons come across.</p>

<p>So is there a hidden agenda? Does applause really correlate with approval? Does word frequency equate to importance? The story depends on how you read the data and what questions they answer or raise. I don&#8217;t know if there is a clear enough viewpoint supported here.</p>

<p>Jena: Sadly, not many programs in information design exist. Reading books, taking courses, and tackling information design problems that interest you are some ways to get started. Here&#8217;s a collection of links which might be useful:</p>

<p><a href="http://understandinglab.com/IDresources/IDresources.html" rel="nofollow">http://understandinglab.com/IDresources/IDresources.html</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jena</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-19428</link>
		<dc:creator>Jena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-19428</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I just checked Mr. Tufte&#039;s website, and he&#039;s giving a course in my town this spring. In the meantime, I suppose I will head to the library! Thanks for the suggestion!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just checked Mr. Tufte&#8217;s website, and he&#8217;s giving a course in my town this spring. In the meantime, I suppose I will head to the library! Thanks for the suggestion!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cujo</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-19427</link>
		<dc:creator>Cujo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:59:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-19427</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Jena, by all means start with the Tufte books. They&#039;re beautiful and easy to read as well as educational. I found &lt;I&gt;Envisioning Information&lt;/I&gt; to be the most accessible one of the first three that I&#039;ve read.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jena, by all means start with the Tufte books. They&#8217;re beautiful and easy to read as well as educational. I found <i>Envisioning Information</i> to be the most accessible one of the first three that I&#8217;ve read.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anneliese</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-19424</link>
		<dc:creator>Anneliese</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:23:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-19424</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Jena, I&#039;m not sure about classes, but there are books out there. One person who is well known for his work on graphics presentations is Edward Tuft. He gives seminars as well.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jena, I&#8217;m not sure about classes, but there are books out there. One person who is well known for his work on graphics presentations is Edward Tuft. He gives seminars as well.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jena</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-19422</link>
		<dc:creator>Jena</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:11:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-19422</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Let&#039;s say someone did want to design charts and graphs...are there special programs within graphic design schools for learning about that? I only took a couple of design courses in college, so I&#039;m not very familiar with the specialty courses that might be available. 
I really enjoy your site, by the way! The article about designing a resume was a great introduction to using styles in Word, which has made my work more efficient (and attractive).&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s say someone did want to design charts and graphs&#8230;are there special programs within graphic design schools for learning about that? I only took a couple of design courses in college, so I&#8217;m not very familiar with the specialty courses that might be available. 
I really enjoy your site, by the way! The article about designing a resume was a great introduction to using styles in Word, which has made my work more efficient (and attractive).</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chanpory</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-19419</link>
		<dc:creator>Chanpory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:40:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-19419</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Both of you are right. Shame on me for not looking more critically.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Annaliese, you bring up a good question about the assumed neutrality of infographics. While the NYT infographics were mostly intended to be informative,  it&#039;s easy to see how information both subtly and overtly skew information to help prove a particular point. Many of us don&#039;t scrutinize them (as my mistake with these recent two infographics) as we do with writing or editorial photography.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Both of you are right. Shame on me for not looking more critically.</p>

<p>Annaliese, you bring up a good question about the assumed neutrality of infographics. While the NYT infographics were mostly intended to be informative,  it&#8217;s easy to see how information both subtly and overtly skew information to help prove a particular point. Many of us don&#8217;t scrutinize them (as my mistake with these recent two infographics) as we do with writing or editorial photography.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cujo</title>
		<link>http://www.lifeclever.com/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/comment-page-1/#comment-19411</link>
		<dc:creator>Cujo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifeclever.com/2007/01/25/the-new-york-times-impressive-infographics/#comment-19411</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I actually think these are both lousy infographics.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The first, as Anneliese says, should be normalized by speech length, so that the red bars show a percentage. As it is, it is impossible without doing a bunch of division to tell what trend, if any, exists in the amount of applause over time.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The second has extremely poor data/space ratio (something like a datum per square inch), and it is not easy for the eye to distinguish the difference between, say, the circles for 24 and for 27. I find myself just using the numbers, which defeats the whole purpose. Better would have been line graphs for each word (sparklines, even).&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually think these are both lousy infographics.</p>

<p>The first, as Anneliese says, should be normalized by speech length, so that the red bars show a percentage. As it is, it is impossible without doing a bunch of division to tell what trend, if any, exists in the amount of applause over time.</p>

<p>The second has extremely poor data/space ratio (something like a datum per square inch), and it is not easy for the eye to distinguish the difference between, say, the circles for 24 and for 27. I find myself just using the numbers, which defeats the whole purpose. Better would have been line graphs for each word (sparklines, even).</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

