Infographics and Communicating Complex Information

  • Michael J. AlbersEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9187)


With the growing use of infographics to communicate complex information, we must specifically look at how people read and understand them. Complex information depends on helping people build relationships and connect the information to the current situation. Infographics are not art displays, but are tools to communicate information. Unless we understand how people comprehend information and how those mental transformations occur when they read the content, we cannot effectively design an infographic for complex information. People come to an infographic for a purpose and with a goal, both of which require the infographics to communication complex information. A good infographic must maintain the complexity of the information while lowering the barriers to its comprehension.


Complex information Infographics Communication 


  1. 1.
    Albers, M.: Communication of Complex Information: User Goals and Information Needs for Dynamic Web Information. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albers, M.: Information relationships: The source of useful and usable content. In: 29th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation. Indianapolis, IN, 4–7 October 2009Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albers, M.: Usability and information relationships: Considering content relationships when testing complex information. In: Albers, M., Still, B. (eds.) Usability of Complex Information Systems: Evaluation of User Interaction, pp. 109–131. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albers, M.: Infographics: Horrid chartjunk or Quality communication. In: IEEE IPCC 2014 Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, 13–15 October 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andriole, S., Adelman, L.: Cognitive System Engineering for User-Computer Interface Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Betrancourt, M., Bisseret, A.: Integrating textual and pictorial information via pop-up windows: An experimental study. Behav. Inf. Technol. 17(5), 263–273 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Campbell, K.: Coherence, Continuity, and Cohesion. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1994)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carretti, B., Borella, E., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R.: Role of working memory in explaining the performance of individuals with specific reading comprehension difficulties: A meta-analysis. Learn. Individ. Differ. 19, 246–251 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark, H., Haviland, S.: Comprehension and the given-new contract. In: Freedle, R. (ed.) Discourse Production and Comprehension, pp. 1–40. Ablex, Norwood (1977)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collister, D., Tversky, B.: Nonanalytic inference (2005). Accessed: 24 April 2010
  11. 11.
    Cottrell, K., McNamara, D.: Cognitive precursors to science comprehension. In: Gray, W.D., Schunn, C.D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 244–249. Erlbaum, Mawah (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Einstein, G., McDaniel, M., Owen, P., Cote, N.: Encoding and recall of texts: The importance of material appropriate processing. J. Mem. Lang. 29, 566–581 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feldman-Stewart, D., Brundage, M.: Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids. Patient Educ. Couns. 54, 265–273 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ganzach, Y., Schul, Y.: The influence of quantity of information and goal framing on decisions. Acta Psychol. 89, 23–36 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., Trabasso, T.: Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychol. Rev. 101, 371–395 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hsee, C.K., Zhang, J.: Distinction bias: Misprediction and mischoice due to joint evaluation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86(5), 680–695 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huff, D., Geis, I.: How to Lie with Statistics. Norton, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janiszewski, C.: The influence of display characteristics on visual exploratory search behavior. J. Consum. Res. 25, 290–301 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kintsch, W.: Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics 9, 87–98 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kosslyn, S.: Elements of Graph Design. Freeman, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mackiewicz, J.: Perceptions of clarity and attractiveness in PowerPoint graph slides. Techn. Commun. 54(2), 145–156 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McDaniel, M., Hines, R., Guynn, M.: When text difficulty benefits less-skilled readers. J. Mem. Lang. 46, 544–561 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McNamara, D., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., Kintsch, W.: Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cogn. Instr. 14, 1–43 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Murray, T.: Applying text comprehension and active reading principles to adaptive hyperbooks. In: Proceedings of Cognitive Science, Boston, MA, pp. 840–845, July 2003Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Redish, J.: Expanding usability testing to evaluate complex systems. J. Usability Stud. 2(3), 102–111 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Remus, W.E., O’Connor, M.J., Griggs, K.: Does reliable information improve the accuracy of judgmental forecasting? Int. J. Forecast. 11, 285–293 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scaife, M., Rogers, Y.: External cognition : How do graphical representations work? Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 45, 185–213 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singer, M., O’Connell, G.: Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 15, 607–631 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tufte, E.: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire (1983)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    van den Broek, P., Lorch, R., Linderholm, T., Gustafson, M.: The effects of readers’ goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Mem. Cogn. 29(8), 1081–1087 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wagenaar, W., Sagaria, S.: Misperception of exponential growth. Percept. Psychophys. 18(6), 416–422 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Winograd, T., Flores, F.: Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood (1986)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zwaan, R., Singer, M.: Text comprehension. In: Graesser, A., Gernsbacher, M., Goldman, S. (eds.) Handbook of Discourse Processes, pp. 83–121. Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.East Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUK

Personalised recommendations