banner
banner
banner
banner

Immigration to Canada 2012 – 2016 by Origin Country

210
banner

An amazing infographic that breaks down the top 5 countries that immigrate to Canada every year for the years 2012 – 2016. Immigration from the top 5 countries per year equate to around 150,000 people per year and the entire number of immigrants coming to Canada per year reach roughly 300,000 people by the end of 2016.

A quick breakdown shows that for the years of 2012 to 2015 the top 5 countries rotate between China, Philippines, Iran, Pakistan and India. The most surprising entry comes from Syria who came in at 3rd place in the top countries with immigrants coming to Canada as a result of the refugee crisis from the ongoing civil war in their country.

An amazing infographic that breaks down the top 5 countries that immigrate to Canada every year for the years 2012 - 2016. Immigration from the top 5 countries per year equate to around 150,000 people per year and the entire number of immigrants coming to Canada per year reach roughly 300,000 people by the end of 2016. A quick breakdown shows that for the years of 2012 to 2015 the top 5 countries rotate between China, Philippines, Iran, Pakistan and India. The most surprising entry comes from Syria who came in at 3rd place in the top countries with immigrants coming to Canada as a result of the refugee crisis from the ongoing civil war in their country.

Score from the experts at Killer Infographics

Visual Communication - 60%
Design - 75%
Content/Script - 65%
Usability - 60%

65%

Final Grade

This infographic presents some data on immigration to Canada between 2012 and 2016. The piece is entirely focused on data and relies on the numbers to deliver the immigration narrative. The consistent color treatments also develop this narrative for the reader. These aspects deliver a great impulse for the infographic, but they also introduce some limitations. Since the graphs rely on visual communication, it's important to know what the graph is represented—and with limited content, that's not always the case. Also, the inconsistent labeling could mislead a viewer in interpreting some percentages. Overall, there's some important information here delivered with a clear approach, but some additional context would help clarify meaning for the viewer. We'd give this a D.

User Rating: Be the first one !
65
0
· · · ·


Related Articles & Comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Menu
×