Great infographics have been produced by Edward Tufte, Megan Jaegerman (above graphic) and others. However, as infographics grow in popularity as a method of communication we are seeing shockgraphics evolve that are really just agenda based design. They are identifiable by the lack of scientific approach, big fonts, oversized icons or reliance on 3D. Generally they are politically or marketing motivated.

The recent spate of shockgraphics are designed to elicit an emotional response. Instead Tufte and Jaegerman display information in an enjoyable and educative way. They achieve this by helping people make unemotional judgement, making it interesting and also visually appealing all in one. Data should always be relative and clear of chartjunk. Without relativity there is no benchmark or position of judgement.

Here’s an example of a shockgraphic based on the US unfunded debt.

Instead, if I said that this debt is a big as all of the molecules on the surface of a pin head -or- that it’s the equivalent of a debt repayable until retirement of $25 per week per US citizen then it’s not quite as scary or interesting. This isn’t to say the US doesn’t have a debt problem, it does.

By not providing the reader with relative information to allow you to benchmark their conclusive representation it becomes a misleading graphic. It just becomes a FUD graphic.

Good infographics should give data a powerful voice and not an emotive one that shouts at you.