Discussion Prompt: Find an infographic and submit a link to it. Make connections between the key components used and the intended audience.
Infographics are a quick, concise and very targeted way to share information with an audience. One may argue that any piece of well-crafted piece of visual communication would naturally be as well targeted, and may very well be as concise, but the specific purpose of an infographic is not to tell the “whole story” (Skerik, 2011, paragraph 6); rather, it is meant to deliver a summary of that story in a manner that catches the reader’s attention, is easily (hopefully) scannable—as people don’t read so much as they scan information (Ahad & Fauzi, 2014)—and easy to understand. Skerik also points out that one significant advantage, which in turn speaks to purpose (Kostelnick & Roberts, 2011), of an infographic is that they help the audience “learn and retain” (Skerik, 2011, paragraph 12) information, whereas many other examples of visual communication serve as references and information repositories, to be kept on hand (or bookmarked, to use a Web 1.0 reference!) and referred to as needed.
The key components of an infographic are crucial to its visual appeal, which is in turn crucial to conveying the right message to the right audience. The text in an infographic, for example, needs to be in a font that is clean and easy to read, so that the audience is grasp the content quickly and easily. The text’s figure–ground contrast (Kostelnick & Roberts, 2011) also needs to be appropriate to the medium: too much contrast can overwhelm the smaller space of an infographic; too little may easily underwhelm a reader and cause the reader to miss important information.
The use of color in an infographic may be of even greater consideration than the text: apart from subliminal messaging (to me, at least, the use of green in an infographic implies that the message will be related to natural or environmental sciences, for example), a pleasing color palette or scheme enhances the visual appeal of the whole, which is critical for attracting a reader’s attention and keeping it on the infographic. Color schemes that are jarring rather than harmonious will detract from the message and interfere in its conveyance. The images—or icons, rather—used and their layout combine with the color scheme to add visual aesthetics as well as to convey and imprint the information to and on the reader.
The infographic I’ve chosen to share is titled “The Great Vaccination Debate” (https://www.infographicsarchive.com/health-beauty-safety/the-great-vaccination-debate/) (Medicalcodingcareerguide.com). This is one of my favorite infographics for a very personal reason: my older son, who will be turning six in May, is autistic. Our younger son is neuro-typical. Oh, and we’re a fully vaccinating family.
The vaccination debate was raging in Canada at the time our older son was born. I grew up in a country in which childhood vaccinations were routine, and as my husband is in the pharmaceutical industry and is often in plants in which vaccinations are manufactured (meaning that he comes into close, personal contact with active viruses and the like), the thought of not vaccinating our children according to current recommendations had never entered our minds. Furthermore, I had already spent enough time in a country in which large numbers of the population are unable to afford—or otherwise haven’t adequate access to—vaccinations, and was uncomfortably familiar with the resulting consequences of this unfortunate lack. My husband and I made our decisions in concert with our family doctor and pediatrician, and didn’t look back.
Then, a few years ago, our older child was diagnosed with autism. Of course, I had heard of the Wakefield study’s claim of a link between certain vaccines and autism—at the time, I had researched the issue and felt confident that the link was invalid. As I made no secret of my son’s diagnosis, I naturally opened myself up to a plethora of criticism from well-meaning but thoroughly uninformed individuals who were extremely vocal about their disapproval of our vaccination choices. In vain did I point to the research and scientific evidence that we had used to support our decisions: I was flooded by annecdotal evidence (something of an oxymoron to my mind) and voices growing increasingly louder from those who refused to do the appropriate research themselves. In desperation—with a hefty dose of annoyance for good measure—I turned to this infographic, and any time someone criticized my choices for my family, I sent it to them. I printed it out and kept it pinned to my wall, as well, to remind me of the facts, the evidence and talking points for when I needed them (it was easy enough to shut down conversations with those I didn’t particularly care about; it was harder to do so with well-intentioned members of the family and some friends). I invited them to skip most of the information and go right to the bottom, which not only lists the consequences of lack of vaccinations (for a variety of reasons) but also information debunking the Wakefield study. While it is true that those who have already made their minds up about a certain idea will likely not be swayed by evidence—or an argument—to the contrary, this infographic was an effective tool in shutting down those conversations.
This infographic is clearly targeted toward those who favor not administering vaccines to their children. The title is an attention grabber, and the iconography used therein instantly conveys the subject matter even without the text: crossed syringes invoke the image of dueling swords and are instantly adversarial but also tongue-in-cheek: anti-vaxxers (this is a term being added to the conversational lexicon, apparently) can tell instantly that their view is about to be challenged, but needn’t take offense immediately.
The use of a sans serif font throughout most of the infographic conveys a modern, almost clinical tone, conveying a sense of objectivity to the information presented (Kostelnick & Roberts, 2011, p. 138). This tone helps support its scientific integrity and evidence-based approach, in an attempt to subliminally sway vaccine nay-sayers. The muted background enhances the information presented, rather than detracting from the message, and serves as the perfect foil for the series of thick red slashes in the Wakefield rebuttal section—how many of our generation do not remember the use of the thick red pen to mark errors in our schoolwork? The use of the red slashes in this infographic appear to be meant to evoke the same sense of vague shame and guilt we all felt at seeing them in our work, and are also meant to convey that the information presented in the Wakefield study was faulty—as our schoolwork must have been, presumably.
The length of the infographic, I feel, weighs against it: much of the audience may not bother reading through the whole thing, especially if, as I believe, this infographic is targeted toward my generation, parents who may have more than one young child and therefore are juggling multiple schedules and lives on a daily basis. This is one reason I often directed recipients to the bottom, and in fact on a couple of occasions have cut sections out of the infographic, sending only the bottom part (with the title intact) along with the citations.
References:
Ahad, D. & Fauzi, Z. (2014, July 12). People Don’t Read, They Scan. Retrieved from Stampede: http://stampede-design.com/blog/people-dont-read-they-scan/#.Vcdv8EWEs4Q
Kostelnick, C. & Roberts, D. R. (2011). Designing Visual Language: Strategies for Professional Communicators. Pearson Education, Inc.
Medicalcodingcareerguide.com. (n.d.). Why do so many people refuse vaccinations for their kids? Retrieved from Infographics Archive: https://www.infographicsarchive.com/health-beauty-safety/the-great-vaccination-debate/
Skerik, S. (2011, April 25). Tips for Creating & Using Infographics. Retrieved from Cision PR Newswire: https://www.prnewswire.com/blog/tips-for-creating-using-infographics-1349.html