5 ms·
My biggest beef with infographics is that they are almost always a static image. This is 2012. Why not make something interactive? It could help address several
by dfxm12 14y ago
My biggest beef with infographics is that they are almost always a static image. This is 2012. Why not make something interactive? It could help address several of the author's points as well.
- oacgnol 14y agoMy prediction is that interactive graphics will be the trend in coming years - the things you can do with d3.js, Protovis, and related JS libraries is way deeper than a simple static image. The New York Times already has some great interactive pieces, e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/13/business/student-debt-at-colleges-and-universities.html?ref=multimedia http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/13/business/stude...
- jaems33 14y agoI don't disagree but there's certainly more complexity with interactive. Takes longer to execute (sketch, design, develop, test). And then many designers don't know how to do interactive front-end code.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoWith HTML5, you could probably make an accessible infographic (that works correctly for screen-reader and text-browser users)
- bwh2 14y agoStatic images are easier to share.
- thwarted 14y agoLinks are difficult to share?
- wingerlang 14y agoImages always works
- benihana 14y agoStatic images being easy to share does not mean links are difficult to share. It means static images are easier to share.
- thwarted 14y agoAre they? Save an image to a file, attach to an email. Cut and paste a link into an email or an IM. Or provide a link to a page with the image: same exact work as a link to a non-image. This is, at the very least, the same amount of work.
- laconian 14y agoI don't think they care so much about communicating facts as much as they care about ROI from their SEO investment. If static images work at getting page views from gullible people, then why change?