This month's article for WWII magazine is all about German anti aircraft defences and the effect they had on US forces.
The data comes from this fantastic source - US Medical Corps.(some images there are a little tough so be careful if you are young or of a squeamish disposition - they are fairly well labeled and hidden behind links)
US data on WWII is quite easy to find. British data is harder to come by - seems more secretive. Russian stuff is obviously in a state of post-soviet de-classification and most of the German records were destroyed.
Here are some comments about this month's graphic. I'm really happy with it as it brings together some material I have been seeking to wrangle for a while and it achieves it's ends in a way that has been a learning process.
Content
I have been poring over these data tables for a while, trying to work out what was the best way of telling these stories - and trying to work out what the story was.
For instance, I have long been experimenting with showing the shrapnel blast to human scale.
(I traced each fragment and then rearranged them in a circle - not too much order to the pieces - mainly the larger bits on the outside to give the shape some definition.)
The blasted fragments are interesting in themselves but need a person there to make them relevant.
By putting them in a circular pattern I maybe is represented their real shape when exploding - this is a trade off. Their actual shape was more like a cross section of a red blood cell - but this would have been too much information.
This work is an alignment of a selection of discretely relevant and interoperable parts that, together make a coherent whole.
Signposting
The relationship between the primary element - the gun and the crew and the flak stats is a sound one.
The gun is the first thing you see and is also on the 'floor'of the graphic. The stats are in the 'air of the graphic. I did wonder if one would read the stats first but i think most would see and inquire after the gun and crew first. The gun is setting up the rest of the graphic without being too obtrusive.
Human Figures
I drew the gun in some detail - with sharp, straight, geometric lines. I wanted the crew to be different.
Their colorings give first a sense of their function and place, but maybe together, these different colours indicate their difference and humanity. They also remind us that this is a representation of a crew - this 'means' a crew - it is not *actually* a crew and therefore does nt need to look exactly like one. (if this is getting a bit close to bluffers semiotics, I'll stop as most of that is pretty pointless - more on that another day)
So if the crew didn't need to be exactly realistic, what should they look like?
I thought the machine gun crew were too sketchy perhaps. I thought the glider crewwere about right for their size - but if these folks were going to have a decent space on the page, they would need a degree of detail because things at distance have a constant level of detail and if we are close up and are beige given a lack of detail, there will be a reason.
It was one thing to draw the filled outlines - a staple of comic art. But then I went a bit further and added some very rough lighter and darker shades to them. I wanted a quality of the vague/precise that Javier Zarracina's news graphics have.
You can recognize what is being shown.
You can reflect in the natural and human qualities of the subject material.
Most importantly - there is still room for the imagination to fill in some of the gaps and not too much render so that you ask unnecessary questions.
So - this graphic marks a satisfying place in my journey of hopeful improvement - its just after two years of doing these.
Improvements made so far:
- signposting and data balance
- inclusion and representation of people
- more disciplined use of colour
Still to improve:
- typography systems
- conceptual innovation in layout/ data vis
- boldness
The above sounds a little clinical - like a Terminator dispassionately repairing it's own arm - but there is really no point doing anything if you don't want to improve.
