I'm sure we all know the reasons why infographics are beneficial/popular. In fact, at some point, you have undoubtedly come across some statistic boasting how much more quickly we receive data from images rather than from text. The problem is, most of your infographics suck.
Were I to write web copy with horrendous grammar, run-on sentences, and numerous spelling mistakes, you'd probably be quick to criticize (and justified in doing so). I fear, however, the web community has been too lax in criticizing poor design in visual content.
A particularly egregious display of this is in most Twitter-related "infographics" (I use quotes because most are just text with poor images framing it). What's worse, sites like Red Website Design proliferate such horrendous design for the sake of 'content'. (Why, by the way, would you go with a design firm who, apparently, is blind to awful design?)
Why I hate your Twitter infographic, revealed.
Let's start with a brief explanation of what makes the Twitter logo a neat design.
Perhaps you already knew this, but the Twitter logo comes from the intersections and differences of the following overlapping circles ↓
The Twitter logo is in there. Do you see it? If not, maybe this will help ↓
The idea is that Twitter is a way for people to connect. The intersecting of circles is meant to be representative of this. It's cool, right? Also, the design is simple, which is a plus.
As any good graphic designer, I have often had to deal with (and ignore) brand guidelines. There are strict requirements placed by Twitter on what color their logo can be, how much space is around it, etc. My complaint about people's Twitter infographics, however, is not due to these brand guidelines (although they are almost never upheld). Instead, it has to do with this:
... and the like.
Not only are all of these patently awful, not one is as good as the actual Twitter logo—which you are free to, in fact, use. (Let's not even get into the egregious use of call-out shapes with these poseurs chiantes!)
So, you have not only used an inferior image, but you got it through a quick Google search; and didn't create any of the images yourself. I hope you don't call yourself a graphic artist. This, combined with the fact that your infographic is mostly text (with these fowl charlatans fluttering about), is why I detest your Twitter "infographic."