Talk:Information design/Archives/2013

Group discussion at Information Design Conference 2007
Shouldn't keywords like "information aesthetics" and "infosthetics" be mentioned/linked to this page? And in my opinion also websites like http://www.infosthetics.com/ should be mentioned. (This is my first attempt of improvement on Wikipedia so I'm not sure how things work around here). Sn3p (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On Friday 30th March 2007, a group discussion on how to improve this stub was held as the closing session of the Information Design Conference 2007, and will hopefully grow substantially in the next few months. Davelab6 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, the article badly needs references. --Ronz 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The conference had a bunch of people with topic headings to flesh the article out, and I'm sure that references will be added when there is a skeletal structure :-) Cheers! Davelab6 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need at least a few sources very, very soon. This reads like a advertisement. --Ronz 16:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * not sure what you mean by an advertisement. What is being advertised? You can see this is a work in progress but if you are disputing the veracity of what's being posted you might want to be more specific so we can address the problem directly. (Thesimpleton 18:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Information design is being advertised. The article sounds too much like a consultant's pitch, not enough like an encyclopedia.  I've repeatedly asked for sources per WP:V, so please refrain from discussions about veracity. --Ronz 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it the typical applications section you're concerned about? Trying to understand your problem - I've looked at other wikipedia entries that attempt to describe areas of professional activity, and they have a very similar tone - for example, engineering and graphic design. Perhaps, as a group working on Graphic Design have done, we could set up a formal Wiki Project for this, and could discuss this kind of issue there. As Davelab6 said, references will be added as we go and less than a week has passed since we've started this effort - some have arrived already and there is a substantial literature of information design to pick the most apposite from.(Thesimpleton 08:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC))


 * I'm concerned about the whole article. Information design is not engineering nor graphic design.  Presenting it as such is part of the problem.  See WP:NPOV. --Ronz 15:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would second Ronz's concerns about sourcing and the promotional tone. The sections on "competencies" and "applications" are especially problematic, since they seem like bullet-points from a sales pitch for the field rather than well-sourced prose summaries.  The article needs better sources and a more encyclopedic tone, or else some serious trimming.  Guide to writing better articles might be a good resource for authors who aren't yet familiar with Wikipedia's standards and style. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ronz, it sounds very much as if you don't believe this topic actually exists. I am genuinely trying to understand your problem, but you reply cryptically each time. Actually information design is very like engineering or graphic design (although on a smaller scale). It has a literature, research heritage and a substantial community of practice and study. What would you say information design is? Thanks for the constructive engagement, Rbellin. I have read the writer's guide you refer to, and I don't believe we have any 'peacocks' or 'weasels'. It also suggests lists are preferable to prose in many cases, but perhaps a solution is to prune the offending sections considerably. You will see that the bibliography is growing gradually. (Thesimpleton 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Sorry if I come across as cryptic, but I'm working on many other wiki articles as well, so I try to be brief and to the point. I've given this article (my contributions to this article, it's talk page, and to your talk page) more time than I'd hoped would be required for these type of issues.  I'll continue to try to help, but I'm hoping that others will do so as well.


 * Information design exists. My personal perspective: it's not anything like engineering, it's almost indistinguishable from graphic design apart from focus.  I'm very familiar with both it's practise and background.


 * As for the recent edits, I'm planning on going through the article and linking the citations with the sources. This will help us figure out what is well-sourced and what could use more work.  Other than that, I plan mostly just to point you and other editors to problem areas and relevant policies and guidelines. I'll also do my best to clarify what I've written and answer questions. --Ronz 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear about what I meant about engineering or graphic design - I was not making a literal point and could have chosen almost any form of study and endeavour that can be described. I was referring to the tone and style of the wikipedia entry on engineering. As it happens there is considerable mileage in a comparison with engineering, in that techniques, theories, user modelling, data and materials are deployed to a purpose.


 * Sounds like it is the introductory paragraph that upsets you. I have had a go at amending it to acknowledge your position, as well as the two perspectives previously represented there. And now I'll duck out for a while and watch with interest. (Thesimpleton 22:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC))


 * The introductory paragraph isn't much of a concern for me. See WP:LEAD.  It should change a great deal as the rest of the article develops.
 * My point of view on engineering and graphic design is not verifiable as far as I know (certainly not from what little I've written about it). I only brought it up because it's relevant to our discussion here on the talk page.  I guess this is an example of what I wrote on your talk page: the article should be about what others have written in sources that meet WP:SOURCE. --Ronz 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Typical applications section
The list of applications needs attention - it is a dump from a sticky notes brainstorm at the conference. Each section needs an intro, and more exposition about the information desiugn challenges of each application. There are almost certainly links to be made too. (Thesimpleton 18:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Our list of Contexts from the conference has a lot in common with the Typical applications. I added what I could to Typical applications. I think I'll change the section title to Typical applications and contexts. JimmycurN 04:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary image needed
We need an image to put near the top of the page, and I suggest the London Underground map, but I don't know what the copyright restrictions will be. JimmycurN 05:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edited - please check it
I have done a copy edit of the whole page, more or less - not much on the last section. I cleaned up some grammar, some awkwardness. I added another point of view - the history of information design comes both from graphic design and from technical information--how to display?

Maybe I've made it worse by adding a paragraph on info design as writing without a reference, but it comes from my professional experience. I'll try to dig up a job description that covers it.

I didn't have a lot to add in the last section but can see you might want to chunk it up into kinds of information and why it's important to get the point across for each one, e.g. better safety, less liability, more customer satisfaction. Or the skills that are needed. Or the regulatory requirements.

The whole thing is probably too centred on the U.S. and Canada's standards, laws, and points of view. In Sweden, laws can not be enacted until they pass a plain language test. And you can get your documents (contracts, etc.) certified plain by the Plain Language Office. http://www.sprakradet.se/plain_language. I'd like to work that in somehow. &mdash;Monado (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge 2012
Discussion of merge of Data visualization and Information design.
 * I think: Information design >> Data visualisation.
 * Information design include pictograms. Simple administrative maps, etc. On the other hand, Data visualisation imply databases, quantified informations, at least for some entries, so you can compare informations display visually. However, this is just my understanding after a hand of years informally interested by infographism and cartography, thus information design. Yug (talk)  21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Rixn99 (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Information Design carries a wider scope than just visualize data, it communicates all types of information. The word "data" here is too limiting. The word "visualization" implies that Information Design would be all about visualization using pictures, graphics, pictograms, illustrations, photographs or other form of images.

Information Design combines many different ways of conveying a message - a mix of text, images, tables, charts, audio-clips, movie clips. Data Visualization is more a sub-genre of Information Design, so we should not merge the two. /Lars

Support: The vast majority of the content in the article relates to data visualisaion, therefore I believe the merger is supported by Merging (see "Overlap" section). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Three reasons not to merge the articles: 1) As mentioned above, the scope of information design is much more broad than data visualization, and merging the articles would make the info design article disproportionately focused on that one aspect of the subject. 2) The data visualization page contains a significant amount of content; merging the two articles would create a page that is too long to be readable. 3) I've added links to data visualization in the 'From graphic design' and 'See also' sections of this page, so the connection between the two subjects should be apparent and navigation between them should be easy. LogertGilby (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)LogertGilby

I strongly disagree with merging. I did an MA in Information Design at Reading Uni (graduated 2004); Information Design is absolutely a discipline in its own right, although it is an interdisciplinary subject; but it covers, over and above the visual design elements already cited, aspects of ergonomics and user-oriented design (both of soft and hard interfaces); and the inter-functioning of text and image. Although often taught with a heavy bias in the direction of graphic design (which was extremely tough for me, not being a graphic designer!), it concerns all elements of the presentation and interaction of text and visual information; signage; instructions; packaging information; etc. It includes the aesthetics of design, but, contrary to graphic design, they are not the first concern; and contrary to data design, they are nevertheless important. To quote Mijkesenaar, Paul, Visual Function: an introduction to information design, 010 Publishers, 1997, p. 18, "The only conclusion possible is that design always involves three inextricably related elements, however much their relative proportions may differ from one application to the next, namely: durability, usefulness, and beauty. ln this respect, design is an activity that unites the elements of durability and usefulness and intensifies the perception of beauty.‎" This cross-boundary concept is key.

I'm very sorry if I have not done this right, I'm not a Wiki posting expert at all. 88.139.6.113 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: To those claiming that information design is more than data visualisation, perhaps you could back this up with some referenced non-visualisation content in the article please? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: for reasons already discussed above. Libcub (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: merger with Information Visualization. The first line of the article says it: "Information design is the practice of presenting information in a way that fosters efficient and effective understanding of it." I think the term information design is poorly conceived. Information is a property of data. There is no designing it. Cranky old man Bodysurfinyon (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

sssssssssss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.248.235 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)