A Classification of Infographics

  • Helen C. PurchaseEmail author
  • Katherine Isaacs
  • Thomas Bueti
  • Ben Hastings
  • Aadam Kassam
  • Allen Kim
  • Steffan van Hoesen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10871)


Classifications are useful for describing existing phenomena and guiding further investigation. Several classifications of diagrams have been proposed, typically based on analytical rather than empirical methodologies. A notable exception is the work of Lohse and his colleagues, published in Communications of the ACM in December 1994. The classification of diagrams that Lohse proposed was derived from bottom-up grouping data collected from sixteen participants and based on 60 diagrams. Mean values on ten Likert-scales were used to predict diagram class. We follow a similar methodology to Lohse, using real-world infographics (i.e. embellished data charts) as our stimuli. We propose a structural classification of infographics, and determine whether infographics class can be predicted from values on Likert scales.


Infographics Classification Empirical studies 



This research was conducted while the first author was visiting the University of Arizona. We are grateful to all the participants, and to Babak Saleh and Michelle Borkin who shared their image data sets. Ethical approval was given by the University of Arizona Institutional Review Board (ref: 1711982836).


  1. 1.
    Rankin, R.A.: A taxonomy of graph types. Inf. Des. J. 6(2), 147–159 (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwasnik, B.: The role of classification in knowledge representation and discovery. Libr. Trends 48, 22–47 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Purchase, H.C.: Twelve years of diagrams research. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 25, 57–75 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia, G.G., Cox, R.: Diagrams in the UK national curriculum. In: Stapleton, G., Howse, J., Lee, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Theory & Application of Diagrams. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, LNAI, vol. 5223. pp. 360–363. Springer, Berlin (2008).
  5. 5.
    Albers, M.J.: Infographics: Horrid chartjunk or quality communication. In: IPCC, pp. 13–15. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lohse, G.L., Biolsi, K., Rueter, H.H.: A classification of visual representations. Commun. ACM 37(12), 36–49 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Novick, L.R.: The importance of both diagrammatic conventions and domain-specific knowledge for diagram literacy in science: the hierarchy as an illustrative case. In: Barker-Plummer, D., Cox, R., Swoboda, N. (eds.) Diagrams 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4045, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blackwell, A.F., Engelhardt, Y.: A meta-taxonomy for diagram research. In: Anderson, M., Meyer, B., Olivier, P. (eds.) Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning, pp. 47–64. Springer, London (2002). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Borkin, M.A., Bylinskii, Z., Kim, N.W., Bainbridge, C.M., Yeh, C.S., Borkin, D., Pfister, H., Oliva, A.: Beyond memorability: visualization recognition and recall. Vis. Comput. Graph. IEEE Trans. 22(1), 519–528 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borkin, M.A., Vo, A.A., Bylinskii, Z., Isola, P., Sunkavalli, S., Oliva, A., Pfister, H.: What makes a visualization memorable? IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 19(12), 2306–2315 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saleh, B., Dontcheva, M., Hertzmann, A., Liu, Z.: Learning style similarity for searching infographics. In: Proceedings of the 41st Graphics Interface Conference (GI 2015), pp. 59–64. Canadian Information Processing Society, Toronto (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haroz, S., Kosara, R., Franconeri, S.L.: ISOTYPE visualization: working memory, performance, and engagement with pictographs. In: Proceedings CHI 2015, pp. 1191–1200. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A classification of chart types, Accessed 15 Nov 2017
  14. 14.
    Juice Analytics Chart Chooser, Accessed 15 Nov 2017
  15. 15.
    Quispel, A.: Data for all: how professionals and non-professionals in design use and evaluate information visualizations. Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg University (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Locoro, A., Cabitza, F., Actis-Grosso, R., Batini, C.: Static and interactive infographics in daily tasks: a value-in use and quality of interaction user study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 240–257 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harrison, L., Reinecke, K., Chang, R.: Infographic aesthetics: designing for the first impression. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2015, pp. 1187–1190. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cleveland, W.S., McGill, R.: Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79(387), 531–554 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tufte, E.R.: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen C. Purchase
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katherine Isaacs
    • 2
  • Thomas Bueti
    • 2
  • Ben Hastings
    • 2
  • Aadam Kassam
    • 2
  • Allen Kim
    • 2
  • Steffan van Hoesen
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations