i would also look around on newspaper websites, at the print versions of their editions, and also at magazines like Time and Newsweek, that use a lot of infographics. The USA Today is also a good example, but their results are either really good or really bad.
making infographics is a niche thing in design. to do them well, you need to understand (in the case of financial or data-driven graphics) a little statistical analysis, to be able to sort through all of the figures and find what's truly important for the reader (and for the story) and then the best way to present that. often, reporters and writers have a far different view of what they want to show vs. what is statistically accurate. since readers will tend to read your graphic (and not necessarily the copy) it's very important for you to be as accurate and truthful (i.e., don't skew the baseline) as possible.
been doing infographics for over 15 years. i had an excellent, excellent teacher. it really does help.
in addition to statistical graphics, the "process" graphics or maps (how computers are made, how a murder was committed, locator maps) are critically important to be accurate. if you don't understand exactly how something was done or where it is, and are able to legibly and reliably convey that to the reader, then you ain't doing your job. and listen to your inner voice. if something tells you after you proof it that it's not quite there or still a little unclear, then rework it until it is. remember, you understand the situation perfectly (or close), but your reader doesn't have the luxury of your perspective.
doing infographics for 15 years is very impressive, I had to do one last semester in school and well they can be very difficult. I was assigned to do 2 infographs about ME. so I am pretty sure I know all the information haha, just doing the layouts is the tough part.
Wow, mojo, I didn't know you've been doing them that long! Have you read "How to Lie with Statistics?" I think you'd get a kick out of it. It's humerous, and of course teaches how NOT to lie with statistics.
yeah, freakin crazy, is what it is. i've turned into such a nerd about them it's scary. they fascinate me just because it's like a direct application of what we do: you literally are plugged directly into the reader, feeding them exactly the heart of the story or something that's too difficult to explain in words but easy to do with a little text and some images.
you know, i've got one book, and i haven't read it. but i'll check out the one your recommend, thanks!!! it really, really, really helps to work with someone who's a pro at them. they get you thinking about the raw data, and the get you thinking about the best way to present it. it's like apprenticing again. the ones that time, newsweek and the grand daddy of them all, national geographic, do are simply awesome. the big thing now is to use 3d modeling and create photorealistic elements. ok, i'm pretty much a 2d kind of guy but i can totally appreciate that level of skill.
i need to check out that book. thanks again for pointing me to it.
In a single graphic Minard shows the number of troops (and therefore the catastrophic losses), the direction (it's a map, too), the temperature, the date and a couple of other things I'm forgetting. It's pretty durned amazing.
sorry. man, i just looked at that graphic. it's a little confusing, but pretty well done for 1869, especially considering he had to do all the research and measurement himself. wow. i'm impressed.
geeze, can you imagine what that hell would have been like? i mean, those temperatures are like -35F and lower. marching. in the snow. without goretex or proper coverings. without MREs. with flintlock guns, i;m assuming. i'm surprised you could get a spark to fire a gun.
I actually ended up going with RichCopy. It's free, only overwrites files that have been changed since last backup (quicker backups,) and doesn't compress or pack the files. My brother who is an IT tech...