In 2011, infographics were as overplayed as that Adele song (you know the one I’m talking about), but I still can't get enough of them. (Infographics, that is.) And since it seems that they’re not going away anytime soon, 2012 should be the year we learn to use them more responsibly.

Infographics use static images, videos or interactivity to tell a story based on data. Data visualizations, on the other hand, are graphic representations (charts, graphs, etc) of numbers, text, conditions or other measurable items. Data visualizations are fairly objective and leave the reader to explore and infer. Infographics guide the reader to a predetermined conclusion, one which may or may not be explicitly stated.

Infographics are overwhelmingly popular because they make dry, data-driven stories fun. Instead of trudging through yet another fact-laden article, readers feel like they’re exploring as they scroll through, click around, or watch an infographic. Even when infographics are a few thousand pixels tall, they’re the antithesis of TLDR. ("Too Long. Didn't Read." for those of you not fluent in Internet lingo.) Both this expression and the infographic epidemic reflect the ever-shrinking size of the average Internet user’s attention span, which is sliced into smaller and smaller pieces by the constant, daily influx of information.

Although there is nothing inherently bad about infographics, bad infographics are all too common. The primary offenders generally fall into three categories: ugly, confusing and deceiving.

I won't spend much time on ugly since it's the most subjective of the three, and perhaps the least problematic. A beautiful infographic requires several rounds of revisions, the application of standard graphic design principles and an awareness of current design trends. From a marketing standpoint, infographics are a great way to spread brand awareness. Check out the blog at Mint.com for some good examples.

Confusing infographics are a more complex issue. An infographic has failed if it leaves the reader wondering what a piece of data means or what the moral of the story was.

Designers must take care to choose the appropriate visuals to communicate individual pieces of data. IBM's ManyEyes project does a great job of breaking down some of the core dataviz patterns based on the reasons they should be used. The Periodic Table of Visualization Methods shows a broader swath of approaches (though I'd like to see an updated version with some better examples). To get a feel for the amount of iteration it takes, check out some case studies from the visualization company JESS3.

In addition to choosing appropriate visuals, it's important to provide context and frames of reference. Is 53% good, bad or mediocre? Is 50 million active users more or less than normal? Relevant comparisons are critical in helping readers understand concepts like growth, size, value and frequency.

Once you have some puzzle pieces to play with, start fitting them together until you have an elegant, comprehensible picture. Edit judiciously, but don't be afraid to throw pieces away if they aren't critical to telling your story. "Usability test" your infographics to make sure your message is being conveyed smoothly and clearly.

The third type of bad infographic is the deceiving infographic. These leave the reader feeling confident and understanding the data, but the data is inaccurate – on purpose or by accident. Designers may unintentionally portray data inaccurately if they’ve chosen an inappropriate visualization technique or haven’t double and triple-checked their math. Before creating the infographic, you have to be clear about the scaling and level of precision you need to convey the data honestly. It helps to explain your methodology where feasible and, of course, make reasonable inferences.

Atlantic columnist Megan McArdle recently called companies to task for deliberately using incorrect data to create viral infographics to bump up their search rankings. A number of responses to McArdle's article accused journalists of being part of the problem for spreading infographics via social media without verifying the data and conclusions. It’s only reasonable to expect high-profile figures to check the credibility and accuracy of any infographic before posting or retweeting it.

However, fact-checking and verification isn’t always easy. Although most infographics list their sources, these URLs are frequently placed in the tiny print at the bottom of the graphic. Readers have to squint and retype to track down sources. Many times, it’s unclear which data came from which source if multiple sources are listed. Using footnotes with simple citations (author, title, date, publication/website) would make it much easier to assess the data’s credibility and relevance. Even if the URL changes, readers can still Google the citation information to find the source. A single shortlink leading to a page of reference material would also be a great solution and provide a chance to elucidate methodology that isn't included in the graphic itself. Hunch often does this, and this poster on scholarly tweets adds the nice touch of a QR code since it was designed for print.

With the rise of HTML5 and CSS3, I hope to see infographics made from markup so they are more accessible and can provide easier access to sources. Granted, the main point of infographics is visualization, but that doesn't mean users with screen reading software should be excluded from gleaning the meaning. There's plenty of text used in infographics, but few actually have appropriate alt-text or long-descs to pass along the message. HTML graphics will also allow for interactivity and representation of real-time data. They can still be converted to static images when needed, or embedded similar to YouTube videos to facilitate viral sharing.

So...TLDR:

• Readers, be skeptical. Infographics are by nature biased, and accuracy is not guaranteed.
• Journalists (and prominent social media figures), check the facts and think before you tweet.
• Businesses, know the potential SEO value of viral infographics, but don’t abuse it. Make sure you have a point, and don't create a graphic just to create a graphic—some things are better said than shown.
• Designers, honor thy data and make it easy to access source material. Respect your audience. And make a New Year's Resolution to learn to code. As some of my colleagues say, CSS3 is the new Photoshop.
   

As designers we spend most of our time coming up with solutions to problems. Even when we aren't actively trying to solve a specific problem we often theorize potential solutions. To better understand problems and focus our problem solving skills we also spend time researching and analyzing within a given problem space. And thus begins our ideation; a collection of potential answers to a line of “what if” style questioning that generates a number of concepts and variations within those concepts.

But when is it time to stop?

This is a problem I see many internal teams struggle with. Why? Because there are almost always more than one answer to a problem and an exponentially increasing number of variations and permutations of concepts based on the number of elements being modified.

And so I see teams waiting, trying to find one solution that shines brighter than all the rest. As soon as they speculate about or identify potential flaws, they generate a new set of variations, without ever fully dealing with the previous. This type of behavior is often the result of wanting to make sure they've considered everything, combined with a fear of making the wrong choice. It also seems to happen most often with teams who have no defined decision maker or whose decision maker has no actual power to act on the team’s decisions.

The road not taken

Many times, these teams employ analysis techniques like usability studies, closed cardsorts, and cognitive walkthroughs to evaluate their solutions. These all make perfect sense. But more often than not, budget limitations dictate the amount of testing that can be done, so they end up choosing a subset of potential solutions. And then, regardless of the outcome of their analysis, their curious natures leave them wondering about the solutions that weren't analyzed.

Another common trait I see shows up once the initial analysis is performed and the results are in. There is a reluctance to reduce their solution set and focus on a single solution to move forward with and iterate upon. Instead, they identify the pain points in a number of their options and generate a number of variations to each that might solve for that pain. They end up increasing their solution set rather than reducing it.

This has numerous negative impacts. The most obvious is the impact on the project's time and budget. It also lowers team morale. This cycle removes any sense of progress and can leave team members feeling frustrated and fatigued.
Fortunately, it’s relatively easy to avoid this outcome. You just have to follow two simple rules:

1. Set a definite “stop” time for concepting.

Yes, the exploration of multiple solutions is a critical component in design. And, yes, due diligence comes from making sure you haven't been too myopic in your problem solving. But without proper constraint it can become an endless state of asking "what if.” Defining a beginning and end for the concepting stage is critical and should happen at the onset of an engagement. You don’t have to select actual dates. You can base the start and end times on other activities in the project timeline.

Once concepting is completed, the initial concepts should be evaluated and eliminated based on their merits. The end result of this process should be one “winner” which will then be further explored and iterated upon. From this point on, design is a series of analysis and adjustments. Analyze the solution to find where it succeeds and where it can be improved. Then adjust and reanalyze.

Design Studio

At Mad*Pow we employ the Design Studio methodology/activity to do this whenever possible. I'll be describing Design Studio in another post very shortly, but in a nutshell, it gives us a set time and place where we will, in a time-boxed session, generate as many solutions as possible, analyze via critique, eliminate some, and refine the remaining.

The Design Studio is almost always done with a cross-functional project team. The DS results are then handed over to the designers, who will take all the concepts they've seen and analysis they've heard and generate a single design solution based on the studio's exploration and refinement. The Design Studio required an intense contribution of time, energy, and focus, but when done right, it can help us get through weeks – and in extreme cases, months -- of work in a few days.

2. Make sure someone involved is ready, willing, and able to make design decisions.

The second key to avoiding an endless, and fruitless, cycle of analysis, is to involve key decision makers from day one. These decision makers should know what goes into a design decision. They should be familiar with, if not well-versed in, the design process. And they should, in most cases, be involved in the exploration and refinement of designs.

I've seen too many situations where the key decision maker was an executive with little time to attend meetings and no expertise to inform any decisions. In fact, these people often end up raising more questions than they answer. Or they bring up issues that have been explored and solved without their input, and now must be explored again.

Additionally, the decision maker must have a clear sense of when a decision must be made and must be willing to move the team toward a decision. Unanimous agreement isn’t always possible. A good decision maker knows techniques and activities that can help, but can’t ensure that it will happen. A good decision maker is not afraid to step in and make the call if the team is at an impasse.

For many of us, “putting the hammer” down can be extremely uncomfortable, and it’s human nature to try to pass this responsibility to someone higher on the org chart. The problem with this, again, is that the person on the next rung of the ladder is typically someone who hasn’t been involved in the process and won’t be able to make an informed decision.

Be prepared: It’s not just for Boy Scouts anymore

These two rules won’t solve every problem you’ll encounter during the typical design engagement, of course. But when combatting endless ideation, they are the two I view as most critical.

Problems can't be solved without progress, and design (aka problem solving) can't happen if solutions live in a perpetual state of "what-if."

By narrowing your solutions and defining a decision maker, you improve your chances for achieving measurable progress, maintaining motivation and momentum, and releasing your solution on time or sooner. (after which you'll continue to analyze and iterate, right?)

As a rule, outside of my professional role as a UXer, I generally try not to stereotype or categorize human behavior. And I tend to refrain from identifying or labeling myself, regardless of the type of classification or categorization. (Myers-Briggs, Strength Finder, middle class, lower class, math class. You get my point.)

However, as much as I resist being classified on a personal level, I’d be foolish if I refused to recognize that human beings exhibit recognizable patterns of behavior or
“behavioral traits.” After all, we designers frequently use these traits/patterns to create user profiles and personas for our clients.

Today, I’d like to talk about communication behaviors, the variety of communication styles we all use to communicate with one another. This particular categorization scheme evolved over the course of an evening spent drinking barley pops with two colleagues, @SethMinard and @parki025. As our table slowly filled with empty bottles, we hypothesized that human beings fall into one of three “communicator” categories: the Jigger, the Pint or the Stein.

So, which are you? Keep reading and decide for yourself.

The “Jigger” or Small Talker is someone who’s on top of current events, cultural happenings, and the day’s hot topics. These people are probably well networked, and know what’s happening in all of their circles: society as a whole, their industry, and their friends or social connections. Jiggers always have something interesting and relevant to add to a conversation. They excel at elevator pitches. However, they’re slightly less interested in diving into the details of any topic.

Jiggers are great in one-on-one and small group situations, but once the group expands to more than three or four people, they will frequently dial down their input and focus on listening. They may also move outside the larger group for a sidebar conversation. Jiggers know how to work a room. They like to assert their opinions and move on, keeping conversations short and sweet, generally under five minutes.

The “Pint” or Medium Talker is someone who tends to listen more than speak. Unlike the Jigger, Pints might not be aware of all the latest trends or gossip, but they will be quick to share their feelings. In some cases Pints may be more aggressive because they’re proud or passionate about what they feel.

Pints will drop what they’re doing in a heartbeat if they have a chance to engage in a conversation that presents a challenge or an opportunity to voice an opinion. And if they are passionate about a topic, they’ll make sure that their opinion is heard. However, they aren’t inclined to change their schedule just to keep talking. Pints stick around long enough to express their opinions, and then move on to address more important tasks. Generally, a Pint will converse with another individual for 10 to 15 minutes.

The Stein or Large Talker is a person who is ready to belly up to a bar -- or conference table -- and settle in for a long and meaningful conversation. “Steins” believe that talking to people is more than just an enjoyable activity. It’s also potentially enlightening and/or educational.

Steins are energized by their interpersonal interactions. They don’t place too much emphasis on swaying their listeners to “their side.” The point of the conversation is to exchange ideas and build a connection between all of the participants.

Once we defined and described these three types of communicators, we moved on to figuring out how this understanding could inform our work as UXers. Could understanding an individual’s communication behavior help us tap into his/her mental and decision-making models?

How we communicate is a direct reflection of our personality, including how we respond to things emotionally, and physically. Nothing destroys a person’s interest more than being “talked at” or “not listened to.” So, understanding how people like to talk to others is a great way to figure out the best way to talk to them. It’s less about “How we should speak to the customer/user” and more about “How does my customer/user want to speak to me?”

The client personas we develop currently include the following attributes:

•    Education
•    Intellectual Abilities
•    Skills
•    Fatigue Factors  (Behavioral traits, like ADD)
•    Language & Culture (dialect and meaning)
•    Acceptance of change
•    Listening / Learning style

Maybe we should recognize communicator style (small, medium, large) when creating our user personas, highlighting the expected communication behaviors for individuals with a particular communication profile.

So, what do you think? Were we on to something? Or did the three of us enjoy one too many barley pops?