Finally I reject the reductionist tyranny of “Or” it’s not an either/or question. Many direct response designs — specifically seeking conversions over Clio awards — use graphics and text successfully.

Design has always been the alternative genius of “And.” The real question — for design — is usable and useful collaboration of usability and graphic art.

They just aren’t pointless graphic art imagery — they use infographics. And just because graphic artists aren’t familiar with visual information design, it does not follow usability is more important.

Rather it does point out what sad state of affairs results when usability is in one isolated silo, graphics people are in their own silo, and no meaningful collaboration takes place.

(Hint: Hyperbolic “us versus them” posts make for good Diggs, bad collaborations)

Graphics don’t have to be irrelevant to the user’s objectives. But graphic artists on the web must evolve from shoehorning a pointless logo and generic stock photos into a layout.

Based on the arguement as put forth so far, encyclopedias could improve usability by eliminating graphics.

Visual merchandising, infographics, and visual information design are everything irrelevant graphics are not. And that is a testable proposition, with plenty of evidence to back it up. It’s just that usability people have ignored relevant graphic design, lumping everything together under the umbrella term graphic art.

Just because the term information graphic is unfamiliar doesn’t mean infographics don’t exist. Just because graphics on the web are mired in superficiality and irrelevance, it does not follow alternatives don’t exist.