As an advocate of the power of information graphics, it pains me to complain about their use but there are times when a graphic is superfluous and even confusing. A perfect example is the graphic that accompanied the article titled, “Narrowing the Religion Gap?” in the magazine section of The New York Times on Sunday, February 18, 2007. The graphic was intended to convey the percentage of American churchgoers whose clergy members spoke out about social and moral issues such as the death penalty, stem-cell research, abortion and immigration. However, the wheel-shaped graphic with radiating spokes of differing lengths and a numbered legend for the nine issues was confusing. It did not work as well as a simple table would have.

A table could have included just two columns consisting of the topics and the percentages arranged in descending order. The meaning would have been clear and more readily accessible. The moral of the story is make sure that the graphic conveys the information either more quickly, more readily or with more impact than text alone.

Jane Brody wrote an article in the January 30, 2007 issue of The New York Times discussing the topic of health literacy. Although she mentions that “health illiteracy” is pervasive because it affects many strata of our society, the misinterpretations she cites will not be rectified by plain language and point to a more fundamental problem. One example—“Medication Should Be Taken With Plenty of Water”—was misinterpreted to mean “Don’t take when wet” and “Don’t drink hot water.” These misinterpretations point to general illiteracy, not health illiteracy. Unfortunately, I suspect that the people who were confused by such simple instructions are barely able to function in any aspect of their lives. They must require assistance to travel, to drive, to work, to dine out, etc.

My concern is that by muddying the issues of general illiteracy and health illiteracy, the medical community will find that solutions are unattainable and give up too easily. If we set a standard of communication for health topics that aims too low, many projects will never make it to the marketplace because the standard will be unrealistic. If someone can’t understand the words, “plenty of water,” it is absurd to think that they will ever understand a written explanation of “a 3% chance of death or serious injury from surgery.” However, many literate, well-educated people cannot understand medical consent forms and would benefit from plain language explanations and innovative information design techniques. The two topics—general illiteracy and health illiteracy—need to be disentangled because the solutions are not the same.

It’s popular to say that the next President of the US will be chosen based on sex or skin color or experience, but I know the real answer. The candidate who unleashes the power of information design will steal the show. Remember Ross Perot—the man’s looks and voice were certainly not his charm—but he engaged people with charts and graphics that conveyed complicated topics in terms that they could relate to.

The power of good information design is its ability to show relationships between events, numbers and items. Good information design is achieved when the display of the information enhances its meaning. Topics that are hard to grasp, such as amounts and probability, are prime candidates for graphic depiction. That’s why I was so delighted to see The New York Times create a graphic to put the annual cost of war in perspective in its January 17, 2007 edition. The graphic showed the $200 billion being spent annually on the Iraq war and then showed what $100 billion could buy instead (universal health care for all people in the US without it), what $10 billion could buy (carrying out the 9/11 Commission recommendations), etc. At least now I know what the monetary trade-offs are.

When Charles Gibson, television anchorman of ABC World News Tonight, wanted to convey the impact of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans one year after the storm, he sought a graphic representation. On air, he contrasted the hefty telephone book of 2005 to the much slimmer book of 2006, and it was immediately obvious how many people and businesses had not returned after the storm. Television is a medium of images, and in addition to its ubiquity, imagery is the source of its power. In the instance of the phone book demonstration, Charlie Gibson was using an image (the phone books) within an image (the television broadcast), doubling the impact.

I’m well aware how easily images and graphics can be manipulated to distort meaning. What I’m hoping for is a candidate who will unleash the power of graphics for good, not evil.

So, in 2008, “It’s the picture, stupid.”