Canada’s Most Visited Attractions (Canada 411)

Canada's Most Visited Attractions Infographic

What It Shows

This infographic lists the top areas and attractions in Canada, ordered by number of yearly visits.

Why It’s Good

I like that there’s an image for each attraction in the list. It’s hard to sell a tourist destination without an image, so good on them for including the pictures.

The choice of data was good. How many visitors, the year opened, and the tourist revenue generated work together nicely.

Unlike other infographics that use icons that I’ve complained about, this one actually gives a per unit scale.

What It’s Missing

This infographics has some problems.

First, it’s rather ugly. The reds clash on their own, and mix weirdly with the blues. The text under each item in the list is grim and not easy to read, and the maple leaf has a lopped off stem for no apparent reason. The header is also indulgently massive.

I like that they gave a unit measure for the little man icons, but then they went and gave the visitor figure for each attraction anyway. I could have done with either the unit scale, or the totals, but both seems a bit redundant.

Spelling mistakes in infographics are unacceptable. They should be professional, and spelling errors damage the credibility with sloppiness. The mistakes are big ones, too, like “Viex Port” (supposed to be “Vieux Port”) as an item in the list, and “Candian Pacific Railways” in #8. Misspelling Canadian! Ugh.

Finally, I’m surprised that the cities in which these attractions are located did not form a part of the basic info breakdowns. You have to read the block of text to see where they are, and some even don’t have the city name! Canada’s Wonderland, for example, isn’t indicated as being in Toronto. The nation map at the top isn’t enough, especially not for a tourist.

A little bit of sourcing wouldn’t have hurt, either.

Good concept, decent format ideas, relatively poor execution.

This infographic is located at Canada 411 here.

  • Kroc Camen

    Kind of fits this formula: It doesn’t show anything multi-dimensional. There’s nothing here that couldn’t be shown in a bar chart.

  • Simon

    Haha I really like that – thanks for linking to it. I would say that if the artwork is really entertaining, it could still pass as useful, even if it could be represented in a simpler chart, but in most cases these types of infographics just balloon out some stats and don’t contribute anything of value.

    Look at this one: Repackaged stats, as simple as possible. To be fair, on the site itself, it’s presented as a graphic, and only submitted to Digg with the word “infographic” to describe it. It is just a glorified bar graph, but it did well because the art was fun.

    Compared to infographics where the form of the information really is crucial to its understanding, graphics like this pale in comparison, as your link suggests.

    Thanks again for the link!

  • Steve

    Wow, Banff really makes A LOT of money! What is that, 21 trillion dollars?

  • Andrea Curran

    That infographic is hideous. What, did they outsource it to another country? There are English errors in almost every entry. Disgraceful.