I am a graphic designer who focuses on information design. My day job? Well, they asked me not to say. But to be clear, this blog is my something I do on my own time and does not represent the views of…my employers. I think what I can say is that given my interest in information design—be it in the shape of clear charts, maps, diagrams, or wayfinding systems—I am fortunate that my day job focuses on data visualisation. Outside of work, I try to stay busy with personal design work. Away from the world of design, I have become an amateur genealogist and family historian. You will sometimes see that area of work bleed into my posts.
The Republican Party has a problem. Its policy platform appeals to “angry white guys” and they are not being bred fast enough. And as the quotes indicate, that isn’t my idea. That comes from no less than Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator for South Carolina. The Wall Street Journal looks at just four states previously safely Republican that are now trending Democratic.
Credit for the piece goes to Dante Chinni and Randy Yeip.
Women are half the population, but only twenty percent of the upper chamber of the United States Congress. As this great interactive timeline from the New York Times shows, at least that inequity has been narrowing over the last several elections.
The infographic comes in two main views. The first highlights women in the Senate and assigns them chronologically and then colours them by party. Important or notable senators are annotated appropriately. This view also shows the breakdown of women in the Senate at any one time in the small chart in the upper-left. Mousing over senators then provides a little bit of information about the woman in question.
But to put it in perspective, by selecting All Senators, the user can see the whole elected history of the US Senate—remember, prior to the 1920s you did not directly elect senators. That makes for a lot of grey bars, i.e. a lot of men.
Credit for the piece goes to Hannah Fairfield, Alan McLean and Derek Willis.
I imagined that I would be finished with posts about this March Madness thing. However, the New Yorker released its own bracket system that interested me—again, with the giant caveat that I know nothing about basketball.
To be an interactive bracket, clearly the piece needs to function as a means of following results. However, the New Yorker offers additional layers as part of the graphic: the programme’s expenses, revenues, and geographical location. Here is the expected bracket of actual results.
But the first thing I realised when looking at the map is that none of the groupings make any sense. How are schools from within the same city all in separate regions?
Second, the list shows you the schools ranked, again by either expenses or revenues. The encouraging thing is when you compare this to the results thus far, teams that spend very little money (comparatively) can defeat the big spenders, e.g. Florida Gulf Coast defeated Georgetown.
And that point of course proves that the most interesting view, the money bracket, does not necessarily hold true. Those teams that spend the most will not necessarily be victorious.
Today’s post comes via a friend and is about beer. What else do you need for a Friday post? Here’s one of the several versions of the chart. It appears to have been based off an original design, but now variations of the re-interpretation are floating around the internet. More importantly though, I’m a whisky guy so I have no idea how true this work is.
Credit for the original piece goes to Mantis Design.
Certainly in the more illustrative range, a few weeks back the Washington Post published a small piece that looked at the F-35. Somehow it has survived budget cuts and become a monstrous $400 billion defence project. Partly that is because it is being built in three different versions for all the main aircraft-flying service branches: the Air Force (A), the Marine Corps (B), and the Navy (C). The Post piece highlights some of the key differences between the versions.
Credit for the piece goes to Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Alberto Cuadra, and Bill Webster.
Don’t stare into the sun. It’ll burn your eyes out, kid. Okay, so maybe that’s a stretch of a reference, but, seriously, don’t. Let the professionals do it with (properly shielded) telescopes and such. This piece from the New York Times looks at a solar flare from 2012 and shows how quickly it developed. The bottom of the piece then shows the reader the frequency of solar minimums and maximums along with some explanatory graphics about just what flares and sunspots are and how they are created.
Also note the centre panel in the top row for the relative size of Earth. Yeah, who’s feeling big now? (Not me.)
It’s March Madness. And I know not a thing about basketball. But I do know a thing (maybe even two) about infographics and data visualization. I also that Nate Silver pretty much rocks. So when he releases odds for different teams to progress throughout this year’s tournament, you basketball/infographic/data viz-loving folks should pay attention.
I of course had to go with Villanova. If only because I have to represent the Main Line. I mean really, it was down to Nova or Temple, which do you think I would pick?
Credit for the piece goes to Nate Silver (definitely for the data, not so sure for the design/interaction/build of the piece).
I don’t often get to share printed infographic work because so much of the data visualisations and the narratives I see are seen through the interwebs. And since I cannot live in every city in the world and troll through all their newspaper pages for good infographics, I have to see online/digital versions.
That’s why this work by Hyperakt for the Italian weekly La Lettura is a great find. Hyperakt included a photo of their work in its natural environment, i.e. the printed page. The immediate drawback is that I do not speak Italian and can comprehend very little of the piece. Thankfully, Hyperakt did include a translated version on their page.
Credit for the piece goes to Deroy Peraza and Eric Fensterheim.
Yesterday was National Pi Day. That’s Pi as in 3.14…not as in pie pie. Unless you celebrated Pi Day with pie. In which case, way to go, you. Me, I’m more traditional. I celebrated Pi Day with talk of pie charts. But at the Wonkblog over at the Washington Post, Sarah Kliff posted about several really impressive pie charts.
My favourite was the actual advertising done by the Economist back in Philly a few years ago. Their advert was printed atop a pizza pie box. It’s the double-whammy of Pi Day: pie charts atop a pizza pie.
Perhaps the most recent winner in the unsurprising post category is Nicholas Felton’s latest Feltron Report, for 2012. As usual, solid work. Below is the spread for beverages, something which I am known to record and report upon from timeto time.