I read something in either SND or Malofiej that really stuck with me. The infographic should be self contained. Meaning, just by printing the infographic alone, the reader should be able to understand what's going on. In this case, without the headline, the reader would have no idea what the photo is trying to say except the difference between the size of the cars.
I agree... and I don't. The grpahic should be sekf contained, but I think moving to hybrid genres would be positive. In this particular case, we have the text, the headline, and the photo. But if we just have the headline and the photo, we could have a graphic. Just think that the headline correspond to the photo, not the text. It's not a proper graphic, but it works as visual information. I think people don't really mind on the name of the genre, but the information they get. Thanks for the comment!!!
Absolutely, I think that drawing a strong line between what is infographics and what's not is a mistake. There's a continuum between a purely textual explanation and a purely visual one (and possibly a third dimension - interactivity), each has it's strengths but it depends on the material and often the most powerful/ complete explanation is a combination of both arts.
Aside from anything else the image is excellent photo journalism, asking the viewer questions, and drawing them into the story.
4 comments:
I read something in either SND or Malofiej that really stuck with me. The infographic should be self contained. Meaning, just by printing the infographic alone, the reader should be able to understand what's going on. In this case, without the headline, the reader would have no idea what the photo is trying to say except the difference between the size of the cars.
I agree... and I don't. The grpahic should be sekf contained, but I think moving to hybrid genres would be positive. In this particular case, we have the text, the headline, and the photo. But if we just have the headline and the photo, we could have a graphic. Just think that the headline correspond to the photo, not the text.
It's not a proper graphic, but it works as visual information. I think people don't really mind on the name of the genre, but the information they get.
Thanks for the comment!!!
Absolutely, I think that drawing a strong line between what is infographics and what's not is a mistake. There's a continuum between a purely textual explanation and a purely visual one (and possibly a third dimension - interactivity), each has it's strengths but it depends on the material and often the most powerful/ complete explanation is a combination of both arts.
Aside from anything else the image is excellent photo journalism, asking the viewer questions, and drawing them into the story.
Tom, that's exactly the point I wanted to explain. Thank you!
Post a Comment