Singapore job/income distribution info graphic


Senior Member
Mar 10, 2010


New Member
Mar 19, 2012
"No supporting data, just an irresponsible rough impression and by listening from all friends, primarily in the music industry, art, engineering, architect, science, education, business, finance, entrepreneurs, army, service and others."

why does the ts post this and waste everyone time


Senior Member
Apr 16, 2010
Yes, that's fine, but the rest of the graphics also use exactly the same representation, hence my question.
The icon or proportion ? I think its perfectly make sense to say that for the given people ratio on the left, income distribution is 1:25 as illustrated on the right. My problem is that these numbers are made up :p


Staff member
Apr 26, 2008
I get that its purpose is more to express what the author feels/thinks, than to contextualize and communicate actual data, so there's no reason to take it seriously. I suppose if the author could have just called it a 'graphic', people wouldn't have any expectations of actual data/info from it :)

11 reasons your infographic isn’t an infographic

  1. Lack of clarity. Infographics should ease and speed the consumption of information. If you take something you can express in 25 words and turn it into 1000 x 3000 pixels of eye-watering garbage, it’s not an infographic. It’s a waste of paper.
  2. Lack of data. Infographics used to communicate data. Like this. Now, apparently, I can turn a fax machine manual into a poster and get it posted to 55 different infographics directories. Retch.
  3. Low information density. An infographic is more effective than words describing the same subject. Otherwise it’s art. Which is cool and all. But it’s not an infographic.
  4. Lack of flow. An infographic should lead me from introduction to conclusion, somehow. It should help me solve or understand a problem. If it doesn’t, it’s a graphic, minus the info. This Visually piece is a great example of infographic flow.
  5. Flatland (read Edward Tufte’s work for the full description). It’s a two-dimensional drawing that describes two dimensions of data. Look at this chart showing Napoleon’s army as the Russian winter destroys it. How many different dimensions are there? I counted at least four.
  6. Chartjunk (again, read Tufte): Extra crap that doesn’t help me understand the data.
  7. Yeck. It’s as visually appealing as a spit wad.
  8. You stole your data. Infographics cite their sources. If you didn’t cite, it’s a stash, not an infographic.
  9. It’s pointless. Just go read Mark Mapstone’s post. You’ll see what he means.
  10. Terrible writing. ‘Graphic’ doesn’t mean ‘you have permission to write drivel.’ The writing has to be extraordinary. It can’t be awful.
  11. Someone who can’t even use Excel told a room full of people, “Let’s create an infographic!” and everyone nodded sagely. You might get lucky, I guess, and still create something worthwhile. It’s more likely, though, that the result will have all of the above problems.

A colored background, a few stick drawings and bizarre font choices don’t make something an infographic. You’re hunting the word into extinction. Please, stop.

Top Bottom