(UPDATE WITH LAURA RUEL’S INTERVIEW AND NEW LINKS)

Most election newspaper graphics are based on a formula of some kind, like so many things in journalism (call them “types” or "forms", if that makes you feel better).  The information has high news value.  The design helps potential voters access the story, and is often the best way to tell it.  And, the concepts behind the graphics have been around for a very long time.  Election coverage is one of our bread-and-butter subjects in news graphics.

Thus, I find it hardly surprising that many major newspapers have gotten into the spirit of interactive graphics ahead of Tuesday’s mid-term Congressional elections in the United States.  Certainly, from my own experience at Agence France-Presse, the election newspaper graphics in our archives were one of the first places I looked to generate ideas on how to develop a Flash graphic concept.  Yet, as the experts I’m drawing upon in this posting will tell you, working from the newspaper formula is not the best way to deal with web media. So, where can you start?

Last July, McAdams (who teaches online journalism at the University of Florida and wrote the book Flash Journalism: How to Create Multimedia News Packages,) initiated a conversation in the media blogosphere on the topic of what works and what doesn’t with 2006 US election Flash graphics on the web.  In her posting, she noted offerings from The New York Times, National Public Radio and Congressional Quarterly’s CQPolitics.com’s and spoke briefly about them.  As a follow up, I have asked McAdams and two other Flash journalism experts to continue this discussion here.

Cairo and Ruel also teach online journalism, both at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.  Cairo is formerly the director of the Online Graphics Department at elmundo.es (El Mundo) and has won numerous design awards for his work.  Ruel is coordinator of the SND.ies, the Society for News Design's Best of Multimedia Design competition, and conducts some of the industry’s leading eyetracking studies (Poynter Institute's Eyetrack III, Digital Storytelling Effects Lab.)

For the purpose of this panel, I asked each of them to compare and discuss the following interactives:

• The New York Times

• National Public Radio

• CQPolitics.com

• The Washington Post’s key races

• The Washington Post’s election game

• The Guardian

There is more interactive, web-based US election coverage out there, for sure (ie, CNN, BBC, AFP, Associated Press).  If you find any other interesting examples, or want to add your own comments and opinions, please feel free.

Katie Ratcliffe: In your opinion, which one of these examples is the most effective, and why?   And which is the least effective, and why?

Alberto Cairo:  The New York Times presentation is the most effective.  It’s just another landmark in their pursuit of graphics excellence.

Its deep and multilayered structure makes it a pleasure to visit and manipulate. In fact, that’s one of its strongest points: it’s really interactive in the sense that it allows the reader to transform the information according to his or her needs or interests.

The design is clean and clear. The use of white space is excellent. The color-coding is nice, simple and easy to understand. It takes some time to figure out how the navigation works but, after you understand it, it’s very good.

Of course, they have considered their audience for creating this piece. This presentation is not just for the reader who wants just some basic static facts. This is aimed to the hardcore politics fan that really cares about the upcoming elections and its possible outcomes. You can even design your dream political landscape and send it to relatives and friends. That’s real interaction. In these sense, information graphics are not static presentations anymore, they have become software tools.

The least effective is the CQPolitics.com’s one. For many reasons (and I am listing only some of them):

1. They have not considered the limitations of the computer screen’s resolution to display information. In the House section they’ve used a map with so much detail that it’s almost impossible to read. In areas where the subdivisions are very small, the white strokes make the map blurry. Besides, the overall trends are difficult to interpret. A map like this would have made sense in a newspaper or magazine, printed as a full-page graphic.

2. They’ve tried to solve this problem by allowing the reader to zoom in and out but then the map becomes difficult to use. If you want to move from one area to another after you have zoomed in you have to zoom out again. There’s not a drag-and-move option. Besides, the vector map is so complex that zooming in takes a lot of time if your computer’s processor is not very powerful.

3. When you click on an area, you get the fact-sheet. The way these are organized makes them very difficult to read. The information is not tabulated or visually organized, it’s displayed as long blocks of text that look neither inviting nor useful. Consider, for example, how the demographics of each place are displayed: a list of percentages instead of a nice chart.

4. By the way, when you click on a state, the fact-sheet hides the map. I rather prefer the way The New York Times solved this, displaying the race’s information at the bottom, without ever making the map disappear. Even if that forces the reader to scroll down a bit, I think it’s better than to get rid of the main navigation device completely.

5. It needs a lot of editing and correction. I’ve found some ‘Presidnetial’ and other typos the states’ fact-sheets.

6. It’s not really interactive. It does not allow you to show only the data that you are interested in. What about if I want to see only the states that are ‘Safe Democrat’?

On a side note, I guess that if you ask this same question to some American graphics directors they would answer that the worst one is The Guardian’s.  I disagree with that idea: The Guardian’s presentation is clunky and static, that’s true, but its information is tightly edited and it’s perfect for the audience of the newspaper, which probably does not care very much about the intricacies of the races in specific states, but about the overall trends in the election and the main battlefields. They don’t overwhelm the reader with too many options and they don’t go too deep. A presentation like the The New York Times’ would not make sense in a European newspaper, for example.

Mindy McAdams:  Even though it's not very attractive visually, the NPR Election Map 2006 gave me the best information -- speaking as a U.S. voter. I was very pleased when I clicked on my state, Florida, and I was NOT flung out to a separate Web page! The overlay information box gave me all the information about my state with clearly marked tabs at the top (U.S. Senate, U.S. House, Governors) -- and it was truly the most useful summary of my state's races I have seen for this election! Even though it's only text, with tiny mug shots of some candidates (not all), the text was so tightly edited and useful, I was drawn into reading it. As a Florida voter, I got more information from this package than I had gotten from either The New York Times or The Washington Post, both of which I had already looked at before I looked at this one. And why? Because it was so compact and easy to use.

Laura Ruel: In terms of serving the intended audience, the Guardian is most effective. (That is, once I get past the initial background photo of autumn leaves that provides no information.)  It is easy to use and navigate and gives users a contextual introduction and explanation.  (Something that we observed in Eyetrack III that most users read.) In this case there is not a need for a high level of interactivity for an audience of non-U.S. citizens.  The goals of the presentation are clear, apparent – and achieved.

In terms of U.S.-based work, I’d argue that the Washington Post’s interface is easiest to learn and glean information from.

However, I applaud the depth and innovation of the NYTimes.com piece.  The multimedia producers there DO push for better and better uses of interactivity.  My biggest complaint here is that the interface requires the user to invest time in learning it.  The back of Steve Krug’s book “Don’t Make Me Think” (an essential resource for anyone doing Web design) starts out with the sentence: “It’s a fact. People won’t use your Web site if they can’t find their way around it.” So although the NYTimes piece is deep and rich, a user has to invest some time on the interface to truly use and interact with all the information. Cognitive load theory could even suggest that asking users to dedicate brain function to figure out an interface may lessen what they remember and take away from the graphic. Adding narrative text about how the graphic works isn’t a good solution, though. Our latest DiSEL eyetracking study suggests that users tended to ignore lengthy “how to” instructions in a Flash-based interface. They just wanted to get things going and click their mouse (or would that be mice?). It is a challenge to get this right, but I believe that as an industry it is one of our most important and difficult tasks. The depth of the NYTimes graphic is commendable and unlike any of the other presentations.  Now we just need to work on its usability.
 
I’d agree with my colleague Alberto that the CQPolitics.com is the least effective.  There are some good ideas buried in a tough interface.

KR: Do you or do you not like the Washington Post’s election game, and why?

AC: If you really have time to spend on it, I think that it’s an interesting piece. Its navigation can be hugely improved, though: for changing the winners you have first to click on the seat, then move your cursor to the bottom of the frame, then scroll down until you find the alternative candidate. Too many clicks.

MM: As of Sunday morning, Nov. 5, the game had received 3,391 submissions. Clearly, people like this.

To me, it's pretty boring, but I'm not one of these politics junkies. I hate the horserace. I think that's the main reason I don't care about this game. The race is not the point for me. I'm much more concerned about the issues and which candidates will work for what I think is best for the country. This game is not about that.

Also, as a voter, right now I am not concerned about the entire Congress. I am concerned about the candidates I have to choose from. That is one for the Senate, and one for the House, plus a governor and a bunch of state legislators too.

The main page of the game, with its paper-strewn desk graphics, is very attractive. But I must say that it's very clumsy for me to use it -- because, like many people, I have 1024 x 768 resolution on my computer. That means I have to scroll up and down a lot to manage this page, and it's horrible. It makes the whole game too tedious for me to use. I know that most Web designers have huge monitors and lots of pixels, but they need to design for their audience and not for themselves.

As for the tabs at the upper left -- how come when I click Senate, I get the House, and when I click House of Representatives, I get the Senate?

I looked at this game three different times and never found the "State by State" option until the third time I visited. It's cool once you find it. Look on the right-hand side.

LR: As Mindy pointed out, people DID play it, so numbers tell us it is successful with users.  Seeing the Senate and House floor diagram was a nice break from the map interface which most of the audience knows at this point, but there are large items scripted as buttons (such as the Senate logo), that do not bring the user anywhere.  The interface is easy to learn, but the benefits of playing aren’t really clear. I’m partial to games that have direct benefit for the user. WBUR.com’s “Vote By Issue” quiz is a great example of game that provides this.

KR. Do you think newspaper websites are using Flash to its full potential in covering this election?  If not, what else could they be doing?

AC: I would like to see more real multimedia linked to these pieces. For example, another layer of information in The New York Times piece might add audio and/or video pieces about each race that could be reached from the main map. What I usually see these days is that newspapers are not considering real integrated multimedia storytelling. Their infographics, videos and audios are presented as standalone pieces, not as intertwined parts of big, comprehensive information packages.

Are newspapers using Flash at its full potential? Yes and no. No, because there’s much more you can do with Flash, especially considering the new video capabilities that version 8 includes. Yes, because implementing those new tools and skills takes time, training and investment. Those are things that are sparsely available in any newsroom. You cannot blame professionals for taking their time to catch up.

MM: I don't really care if they use Flash or not to cover the election.  This year in my state we have seen a huge number of purely negative TV ads, and I have received a very large number of full-color printed campaign materials in the mail at my home, also all negative. It is very hard to find out what the candidates in my state actually stand for, because all they are doing is trashing the other guy.

The journalists, in covering just the race and not the issues, for the most part, are doing a terrible job this year.  Using Flash better would not improve the situation at all. Doing better and more responsible journalism would!

LR: I see a good number of SND.ies entries that try new approaches with Flash-based storytelling, and I applaud that.  As far as whether we are using Flash to its full potential – of course not. I don’t believe anyone – in news or otherwise – is yet.

I agree with Alberto’s thoughts concerning more integrated storytelling, which is a big part of what those of us in multimedia teach at UNC – the differences between multiple media (segmented, text, audio, video, interactive content) and multimedia (integrated seamless experiences that use the best forms to tell each aspect of the story).

What those who create presentations need to do is think more critically about the strengths/weakness of all storytelling options available. The value of Web-based storytelling is that the reporter/designer/producer is not limited by any one storytelling method. Immersive experiences use the best medium for each part of the message and wrap that into a integrated, seamless multimedia experience.  Mindy has created a list I use as a springboard to get my students thinking this way.

KR: Do you think this body of work serves the public’s interest (in terms of journalism’s role in the democratic process)?  Yes or no, can you explain why?

AC: Considering these infographics as data-analysis devices, they serve the public’s interest without any doubt. They make huge sets of data available and easy to understand for the (nonexistent, by the way) average reader.

MM: I think the map-based interfaces are one good way to help the public better understand the process and their role in it. The CQ 2006 Election Forecast Map is especially interesting, even though at first it appears to be too complicated. That's because all the congressional districts are visible. When you zoom in, however, this is a very good thing. Zooming in on my own congressional district in north-central Florida reveals the gerrymandering of the districts, which effectively disempowers the African-American population of the state (not that this is news) -- just check out District 3, where I live (49 percent black) and compare it with District 6 (12 percent black). And look at that crazy District 8 (only 7 percent black).

Unfortunately, all this reporting about the races for various seats in Congress -- and for the governor's office, in certain states -- is only one small part of the story. It's so much harder -- and so much more important -- to inform the public about the intentions of candidates to address particular issues. This is where our journalists and journalism organizations are failing us -- again -- in this election.

LR: Let’s look at this from a research perspective.  If the goal of journalism is to create a more informed electorate, then gauging comprehension of the material would be a good yardstick to measure this.

In our DiSEL study on HTML vs. Flash suggests that users receiving information in a interactive Flash piece had more correct responses to unaided recall questions about the content than those receiving the information in a HTML text-based story. In Eyetrack III we observed that information, unfamiliar terms and words are best remembered when presented in an interactive format. However, names of people and places were best remembered when using straightforward, narrative text.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but the main thing here is to understand what the presentation goal is and to use the media forms best suited to achieve it. More answers will be forthcoming in the next DiSEL study, as well as Poynter’s Eyetrack 2007 study (scheduled for release in March 2007).

KR: Clearly, these are interactive and thus participatory for the audience.  How do you see individual users interacting with these graphics?  (ie, once & read it all, look up their own district, just play, etc.)

AC: It depends on the reader, of course. That’s something you have to consider when you design pieces like these.

On one side, you will have the reader that wants just the basic facts at the first glance, the reader that will visit the presentation, get the basic figures and leave. This reader may take a look at its district, but he or she will not spend a lot of time on your graphic.

On the other side you will have the hard-core-partisan types that I mentioned above. You have to satisfy their needs too, providing in-depth information and analysis to see and play with. The audience of a generalist online newspaper is multiple and varied.

MM: I think very few regular voters will look at these maps at all. Why? Because they don't help us understand whom to vote for.

The Guardian's U.S. Midterm Elections is the most superficial of these packages, but it's aimed at an international audience, so that makes sense. It has an appealing look and feel, and it's very easy to use. Putting the issues in a scrolling text format probably is not the best choice -- I would list the issues (there are only five) and make each one link to an overlay box. "Races to Watch" boils the whole election down to 12 states, and I think that's probably very appropriate for a foreign audience. The rollover map interface makes this an easy read. The "Congress" section provides a nice visual explanation for international readers.

While the Guardian's package is not very helpful for U.S. readers, I think it provides a good lesson for information design -- we need to ask how much the audience can and will absorb.
 
LR: I agree with Mindy that a large portion of the general population probably does not use these interactives – not because they are not effective, but because they are not as easy to use as they should be and they don’t help a user know who to vote for. Personalization is key, which is why I’ve referenced the WBUR.com’s “Vote By Issue” quiz as a good example of an election interactive piece. Combining something like the “Vote By Issue” quiz with the NYTimes piece, for example, would be a huge reader service.  Also, layering the information in a way that a “quick hit” user can come and go and feel satisfied is important.  More usability testing on projects such as these is key to improving them from election to election.

KR: If a newspaper wants to use these as a model for its own election coverage (not necessarily this election), what is the most important thing its editors need to consider before getting started?  (Keeping in mind that many newspaper websites are not doing their own Flash graphics.)

AC: You need to train and specialize people. Forget about doing interactive presentations without any investment. Convince yourself that the Internet is not a threat, but a huge opportunity.

My advice is to get the print information graphics desk involved and make at least a couple of hires that would work for the website full time. One of them would be an information graphics artist with animation, 3D and interaction design skills. The other one would be a journalist/designer (an artist might be my choice) with deep Actionscript, XML and PHP knowledge. You cannot survive without someone that has those kinds of skills. Online presentations are not about ‘translating’ your print infographics to the Web, that never works. It’s about understanding what the languages (and the limitations) of the Web are.

As a second step I would consider hiring a video and audio reporter.

MM: I think showing a clear graphic of the districts involved in your state's or region's election races is very important. And making a map with each region or district as a clickable button is very, very easy to do in Flash!

It would also be very nice to have a database that allows the user to type in his or her home address and receive a linked and printable sample ballot. I received a sample ballot in the postal mail, but it's up to me then to go out and dig up all the information on each candidate -- because the ballot is nothing but the names and the boxes to be ticked.

The candidate's own Web sites are much too wordy and hard to make sense of in a reasonable time frame. What would be the best service for journalists to deliver to the voters is a streamlined, objective list of what the candidates can really be expected to do and to stand for if they are elected.

LR: To add to what Alberto and Mindy have said (all of which I agree with), I also would include the need to train your news staff as multimedia editors – individuals who can understand the strengths/weaknesses of each presentation option and make solid decisions about how to create immersive packages.

Sources: New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Congressional Quarterly, National Public Radio, WBur.com, CNN, BBC, Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, SNDies, Poynter Institute, Digital Storytelling Effects Lab, Encyclopedia of Educational Technology