James Souttar (January 12, 1996)
Some findings from a forthcoming report by the OECD into levels of literacy in European countries, released by the British media last Thursday, show that up to 50% of people in the UK are not capable of using the information presented in a bus timetable, or in food packaging. Findings in other European countries were comparable. In a report on Radio 4's 'The World Today' a commentator from a UK government agency responsible for tackling adult literacy revealed that the ability to access information is becoming an increasingly important criterion in assessing literacy.
Some people will no doubt see this as an argument for better information design. Others, for emphasizing 'information literacy' in the educational curriculum. But I also think there is a puzzling question here - why do so many people, who are literate by more traditional criteria, have problems with information? [And I think to some extent I have to include myself in that latter category, since I often find it extremely hard to understand what 'foolproof' road signage systems, or 'plain english' government forms, are asking me to do]. Is it that our 'information artefacts' - despite (sometimes) being paragons of structured layout and clear communication - are in some way alien to the hermeneutical processes of the human mind? And, if so, what implications might this have for the much vaunted 'Information Society'?
A further thought occurs to me, which is that levels of literacy in other areas appear to be rising - particularly in the increasing sophistication of audiences in responding to advertising. Why is it then that we find it easier to 'read' obscure (and often highly esoteric) connotations in commercials - yet find it so difficult to interpret supposedly unambiguous messages on labels and forms? Is it that we are 'wired' for messages that have a narrative structure (powerfully manipulated in advertising, largely absent in infodesign)? Would we find better results if our information artefacts told a story?
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Sean McNaughton (January 20, 1997)
James Souttar wrote:
James --
I think you are right to distinguish between literacy and "information literacy," because I think that information graphics like bus timetables and nutrition labels involve different reading skills than simple prose. Whereas prose is a relatively simple linear explication of information, diagrammatic designs presuppose the ability to correlate disparate elements into a cohesive whole, and to made deductions based on how various elements are arrayed. Even when the design is simple (for those familiar with information design), graphics require the ability to understand implicit relationships between elements.
Reading a graphic is less a process of accepting a stream of information than it is an exploration of an information space. I think this is taken for granted by people who easily understand tables, timetables and more sophisticated graphics.
For my part, I think the best approach is one of education -- that readers need the critical thinking skills that fluency in information reading requires. I'm not sure how attempts at educational reform have worked in Europe, but in the States it often seems that politics takes the forefront to actual substantive reform. For that reason, I'd be deeply skeptical of curriculum changes aimed at "emphasizing 'information literacy,' " because I see information literacy as the product of wider-ranging critical thinking skills. I believe that teaching people to think is much more beneficial than simply adding items to the list of things they must memorize by rote. If people are able to think critically, it is a simple matter to teach them how to decode a specific information design (bus schedule, food label, road sign).
I think that "foolproof" information systems are an oxymoron. Any information space/graphic/design presupposes some literacy, and often is built on cultural norms or preconceptions. What is "foolproof" in England, Japan or Indonesia might well be inscrutable in the States, and vice versa. And "plain English" government forms are often created by bureaucrats -- who are designing from the perspective of a byzantine labrynth with its own rules and language. Perhaps this is why the forms fail in the open air -- they are made for a different world.
I would argue strongly against the assertion that information artefacts are alien to the hermeneutical processes of the human mind -- it is, after all, the human mind that created them. But they require commonality between the designing/presenting mind and that of the reader. Structuring information requires judgement processes which must be at least implicitly familiar to the reader, or the design will be unfamiliar, and the content difficult to understand.
For all these reasons, a critical aspect of information design is awareness of the reader. The designs must be faithful to their content, but also bear in mind the perspective from which readers will approach them. Coming up with "the best way to portray information" without heeding the reader's perspective is the certain route to failure -- other designers will understand and may even applaud the work, but it won't communicate.
We are therefore forced into the role of interpreters. It is our job to stand beteween the raw information and its recipients, and present it in a way that they will understand. We must understand explicitly and clearly what often remains implicit: the rules and context of communication. But this requires an audience with certain critical skills.
I believe the difference is one of acclimation. Television -- and advertising -- are ubiquitious; their very saturation encourage the "literacy" requisite for their success. But their literacy is built on more primitive skills: our species is well adapted for visual/auditory input, and we learn (before we learn anything else) how to see and hear, how to correlate various simultaneously inputs and made instinctive deductions from them. Succinctly, television literacy is built on skills we all have from infancy.
(I would also argue that advertising labors under freedoms which we do not enjoy: it can succeed, and often does, without articulating a single or easily articulable message. Indeed, some of the most successful and entertaining advertising out there capitalizes on ambiguity in its imagery.)
> Would we find better results if our information artefacts told a story?
Only when the content is appropriately communicated in narrative.
Thanks for introducing this topic -- I find it fascinating.
Brenda Mattick (January 20, 1997)
James Souttar wrote:
My immediate response was "but advertising works on emotions, gratification of needs etc etc" and doesn't simply aim at providing information. However one way of engaging emotions and providing context/relevance is of course through story telling. As it happens, I've just read an interesting article on narrative structure: Robin Mason from the Open University (UK) sent me the article by Stephanie Gibson, University of Baltimore titled: "Is all coherence gone? the role of narrative in Web design".
To quote: "It begins with a selective examination of narrative.... what it becomes in the hands of technology other than print". Might be of interest to some InfoDesign List members.
(Apparently this article is archived as GIBSON IPCTV4N2 on LISTSERV@LISTSERV.GEORGETOWN.EDU -- but I didn't have to get it this way)
Thread | Message Archive | Home
I too have wondered about many of the issues that James has raised. As an educator teaching in a university visual communication (or graphic) design program, I notice much of the phenomena that James has described. While I don't think I have answers to the questions raised, I do have a few points I'd like to add to the discussion.
I have often maintained that there are two types of readers -- motivated and unmotivated. For example, I am a motivated reader when it comes to the information I receive from the various e-mail lists to which I subscribe (this one for instance), even though looking at a computer screen can be a somewhat unpleasant reading experience.
On the other hand, there is much other information I receive that is unsolicited -- such as junk e-mail. Since I did not request that type of information be sent to me, I am unmotivated to read it, and therefore take little time to decipher and understand it. This kind of mindset is (in my opinion) typical with most readers of what we refer to as the products of information design (as James points out -- signage systems, labels, forms, etc.)
To compound this situation, I feel that much information design (though well-organized) "looks" fairly dry and techical, presenting a somewhat daunting task to even the most motivated reader. While I am no huge fan of advertising, the field has found ways to "attract" unmotivated viewers to their messages, which is, of course, a critical first step in communicating.
What are the ramifications for information design? Perhaps a more visual and less verbal approach is called for (depending on the subject matter, audience/users, etc.) when presenting content. Perhaps we also need closer connections between graphic/visual communication designers and information designers.
I have often been distressed by the fact that most graphic designers and their professional organizations "ghetto-ize" information design to it's own little specialty removed from the rest of the field (the AIGA's once-in-a-while "InfoGraphics" show is an example here in the US). As someone who's been exposed to both specialties, I find the most successful design efforts are those that mix what each area does well -- well structured and clear content presented in an attractive, interesting, and appropriate form. While this standard is easier to describe than create, it is perhaps what we should be trying to achieve.
Thread | Message Archive | Home
James Souttar wrote:
[interesting background snipped]
You struck a nerve with me on the subject of "governmental forms", (particularly those of the tax persuasion). My personal experience is one of great frustration due to the fact that the design of these one-mind-fits-all forms ignores differences in thinking/learning styles. I personally have a much easier time digesting/understanding/ following detailed instructions if I understand what is going on in a fairly top-down perspective, and I'm much less paranoid about the accuracy of what I'm doing. If all I'm given is a mass of mechanical detail (which might be very precisely stated!) with no accompanying overview, I find that I'm constantly distracted by a voice in the back of my head (arising from years of training and hard experience) shouting loudly, "STOP! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING! YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THIS WELL ENOUGH TO DO A SANITY-CHECK ESTIMATE OF THE RIGHT ANSWER, SO YOU MAY FORGET TO CARRY THE 1 AND WIND UP IN A DARK, DAMP DUNGEON FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE!"
... and, to be perfectly candid, a touch of boredom arising from purely mechanical crank-turning.
Others of my acquaintance are perfectly capable of sitting down and turning the crank for as long as necessary, without sharing my distractions.
Please let me emphasize that I view this purely as arising from personal thinking style, the result of one's mental habits, background, training, etc. I do NOT think it is an issue of intelligence, competence, or any other value-judgement-related issue.
Or is it, perhaps, that effective artistic communication is such precisely because it uses our interpretive abilities to create uniquely personal overtones of the received message, while the don't-ask-questions-just-do-the-next-step bureaucratic communication attempts to strip out any possibility of such personal impressions, thus frustrating the very skills that we value in all other interactions?
Thread | Message Archive | Home
John McGhie (January 20, 1997)
I think the problem *is*, as noted by James, that we are asking the user to supply the context.
An advertisement often spends several seconds on establishing the context before it imparts the message.
In advertising copy, I am careful to use the "lingua franca" of the target audience. This is a very different language from "Plain English". Plain English often uses unfamiliar terms for a concept, just because the words *individually* happen to fit the lowest common denominator.
For example, a Cherry Picker becomes an "Elevated Work Platform". Now, anyone who knows what the device is calls it a "Cherry Picker", so Plain English adds a level of abstraction. Another example: "Printed Wiring Board"; anyone who uses one in Australia calls it a Printed Circuit Board.
In advertising copy, I give free reign to my classical writing skill for using a variety of terms for the same concept, and avoiding the use of the same term more than once in a paragraph. This enables the reader to understand unfamiliar material from the context.
When we "Plain English-ify" (howls of pain from the gramatical purists...) a piece of text, the first thing we do is unify all the terms to a single term for each concept, then we condense the text by removing the narrative. Finally, we often impose an "Information-Mapping"(R) type structure on the result which is rather different from the free-association approach to knowledge of the individual human. Highly-structured text tends to be maximally intelligible only if it is accessed in the serial-sequential order in which it was designed to be read. It performs poorly when accessed in the random, jumping-about and flipping back fashion most people use when looking at information of an unfamiliar and (to them) not very important nature.
The end result can be that you either understand it or you don't, depending upon whether you have seen the terms before. Given that most things that receive the Plain English treatment are the sorts of regulatory or official documents that human beings would rather *not* read, your average Fred in the street is *not* going to pull out a dictionary to decode the text.
Because he has come to understand that if his understanding the text is important enough, someone will hire an advertising agency to translate it for him. :-)
As a journalist, one of the first concepts I had to learn was to "let it run when it gets deep". This meant that I would leave the text loose and flowing, with lots of metaphor and simile, when explaining complex concepts. When the article was simply recording already well-understood background, that was where I would cut it tight to save space. Any journalist is familiar with the concept of "the story that just won't cut", which means we recognise that there are certain pieces of text that simply require a lot of words. If we try to remove words to make the story more concise, they do not leave the reader with the impression that would make the story worth running in the first place. We are then faced with the choice: run the story in its full-out form so it works, or leave it out entirely.
How well do we succeed? Well: What do your literacy scores reveal about the accessability of the information in the tabloid newspapers we all love to denigrate (including me!)?
Thread | Message Archive | Home
David Sless (January 26, 1997)
I don't want to kill off an interesting discussion, but a few assumptions might be worth looking at.
1. James introduces the topic by saying:
I have looked at a number of such surveys, though not the one mentioned by James, and what has struck me, from an information design point of view, is the poor quality of the test material. Thus the 'literacy' that is being measured may be that of the 'information designer' who prepared the test material rather than the population of users. I tend to think of literacy ecologically; there is an interdependence between readers and writers. Most of the literacy tests I have seen don't take this interdependence into account. Like much social research sponsored by governments, it focuses on the 'victims' rather than the problems that give rise to the victims. Conservative critics then neatly move to blame the victims or the schools, but not the systemic issues that give rise to poor information design.
I think it would be very useful if someone on this list could get hold of copies of the test material, circulate it to the list members, and have a discussion about the quality of the material used, the questions asked, and how relevant this might be as a test of public literacy. I would be happy to help in any circulation of material through our Institute.
2. James continues
What is the evidence to support the idea that 'levels of literacy in [advertising] appears to be rising'? I'm not sure what literacy in this area might mean. Are we discussing peoples' understanding of advertising, or are we discussing advertising success? Most of the evidence suggests that advertising is only succesful in a commercial sense at the margins. A useful book on the subject would be Michael Schudson (1986) *Advertising, the uneasy persuasion: its dubious impact on American society*. NY, Basic Books.
As a recent example, we have been looking at the success rates of direct mail advertising, which many in the biz reckon is one of the most succesful current advertising methods. People working in the field typically quote a 1% to 2% sales success rate for direct mail, and get very excited when it goes up to 3% or 4%. This is not unlike the figures from other types of advertising. To understand this in terms of commercial 'success' one has to see it in an overall volume marketing context, where a single % point increase in sales can mean a major difference to profits, given that production costs per unit are typically small, most of the cost going into production setup and product development. So, success in advertising is not quite what it might seem. But is this what we are discussing? And are we using supposed 'success' in advertising to make comparisons with 'success' in information design. What does it mean to say advertising is 'easier to read'?
Just to give a comparison. In our information design services to our Institute's member organisations, we regard 80% success at finding and using information appropriately as a *minimum* acceptable standard for the designs we develop. The people we test are usually told when we recruit them that they will be asked to read something, so there is a certain self selection at work in favour of people who are literate . Where we do not tell people in advance about the nature of the task, we typically find that about 15% are unable to use the information at all, and our observations in the testing suggest that this is due largely to basic literacy problems. As most of our work is small scale and involves small samples of users, one can make no useful generlisations about our data. But the fact that it is so different to the figures that come out of literacy tests suggests that there is something not quite as it seems. Our suspicion, as I suggest above, is that literacy data is an artefact of the test material, not an accurate picture of the population's literacy skills.
3. James concludes by asking:
> Would we find better results if our information artefacts told a story?
I think in many circumstances the answer is Yes. We have found, as have many others, that using a narrative structure can greatly help users--even if it's a very primitive narrative, simply following the temporal sequence of expected actions. For anyone interested in this issue--about whether we are 'wired' for story telling--can I suggest a lovely book by Jerome Bruner (1990) called *Acts of meaning*.
4. Anyone in search of the reasons why such things as labels or forms are generally poorly designed would do well to look at the systemic conditions under which such aretfacts are 'designed'. Regulations, laws, and normal bureaucratic procedures can account for a great deal of what happens. Breaking through such systemic constraints takes political will and intervension. As an information designer, you have to believe that reforming the system is possible. If you don't think that is possible, perhaps you need a different career.
Thread | Message Archive | Home
William McKee (January 26, 1997)
James Souttar wrote:
James,
Thanks for the newsfacts and your intriguing thoughts. Writing as a layman in the realm of information design, I offer the possibility that we humans are also fighting the battle of attention span. With advertising, it is "easier" to process complex information since the message(s) contained within is/are either of everyday use or of interest to the individual. A train schedule or a tax form, both of which contain complex, condensed information, are extremely boring (unless you desperately need a train from London to Wales at which point the train schedule becomes interesting).
The implications for the future (aka, the "Information Society" which we have been living in since the advent of radio waves) in my mind are that information must become more specific and more intelligent. More specific would mean instead of having a train schedule for all departing trains, you would simply be able to look up the times for the train from London to Wales. More intelligent would mean that you would get only the information required (instead of all possible tax forms, you would only get the ones needed for your situation).
With increased availability and enhanced capability of digitial systems, the information could take up reams of paper in the traditional sense. Part of the reason for a complex train schedule is that it needed to fit onto a single piece of paper. Now though you could walk up to a terminal, type in your destination, find the times of departure from your present location and pay for your ticket all at once. If you are at home, you could do it there as well.
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Just an addition to what has been mentioned.
I'm not sure how it is outside of New Zealand (though I imagine it is much the same), but many of the more complex advertisements rely on previous advertisements -the audience is being trained to read, or to remember specific associations.
Many rely on how well previous advertising efforts have stamped a brand or symbol in the public mind. Confusing commercials will even provide material for conversation.
Advertising is pervasive.
Thread | Message Archive | Home
In "Information literacy (2)" on Mon, 20 Jan 1997, Sean McNaughton said...
Later, John McGhie said...
John is describing the application of a mechanical process regardless of the quality of the outcome. This approach might be common - I hope not - but it parodies and traduces the plain language movement. Purposeful communicators must have understanding as their target and clarity as their aim, which implies a user-focussed approach. As Sean said:
John also said...
Your average Fred may not *want* to, but he might *have* to - or pay someone to do it for him. Language is an instrument of power; meaning, status and power are linked. A "Plain English treatment" that is not concerned with the outcomes for its readers is symptomatic of... what? Contempt for social equity? Whatever, it is near the heart of the relationship between the communicating parties.
I have a problem with concepts of "information literacy" which don't deal with this relationship. Individual cognitive ability is important, but social factors modulate the ability or willingness of people to perceive, understand, learn, and respond. The social-political-economic context is also vital to any examination of how, and how well, information designers do their work.
There is a *bigger* picture.
David More
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Steven Owens (January 26, 1997)
Fascinating discussion. My thanks to the poster who started the topic.
It's also available on the web: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/optek/1996/n2/gibson.txt
Although only in <PRE>formatted text format. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
Incidentally, the first link I found to this article was on a page with some other interesting links to related theory on web design: http://www.devry-phx.edu/webresrc/webmstry/stylthry.htm
The "root" of this document structure, in case you want to start at the top and work your way down, is: http://www.devry-phx.edu/webresrc/webmstry/mastery.htm
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Dick Ottevangers (February 1, 1997)
What surprises me in the discussion so far is that the psychological angle is absent. But as a psychologist I am of course heavily biased.
Implicit in the idea of information is that someone is interpreting signs or sounds to get some meaning out of them. To be able to do so the interpreter has to know the 'language' of the signs. The more this language diverges from our natural language, the more specific knowledge is needed to do so. I use language here in a loose sense which comprises both the jargon of a professional community and for instance the sign-language on telephones (which I don't understand, but just pushing a button works sometimes).
I think the main task of an information designer is to reduce the amount of specific knowledge needed to interpret potentially interesting signs. For instance by supplying relevant context, adding information that guides interpretations, adding redundancy, etc. And of course the designer tries to fit the presented 'information' to the needs of the target population. If you do not know it already Don Norman's "The design of everyday things" gives interesting examples from different domains.
The more abstract information is, the more difficult it is either to interpret it or to present it for mass consumption. Often the designers do not realise how heavily they rely on pre-supposed knowledge. I do agree with David Sless that a lot of material is badly designed.
The obscure connotations that we 'read' in advertisements often refer to or are triggered by our basic emotions (sex, food, power) and not by our literary training. If you could introduce references to these emotions in for instance in tax forms or manuals, you would certainly give rise to a fan club and maybe the understanding of the information would increase too.
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Jay Rutherford (February 1, 1997)
James Souttar wrote (ages ago - 12 Jan.):
Perhaps this is what some psychologists once referred to as the right/ left brain thing. Understanding text and other structured information takes place in a different part of the brain than the deeper, emotional crevices and crannies that advertising speaks to. Yes, I think information design is not only about clear typography, clean white backgrounds, and strict layout grids. Evoking an emotional response is often what is required in a piece of information design but how does one teach this or sell it to the client who's paying you to do it? This is an area that hasn't really been adequately explored in info design (IMHO). Just when we're trying to show ourselves to be rational and direct as information designers, we discover that the methods we're using are perhaps suspect. This is, in a way, a bit discouraging but I still find it fascinating. Anyone else?
[Jay Rutherford at the Bauhaus in Weimar]
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Steven Owens (February 1, 1997)
I have to wonder about this as well. Most commercial advertising that I've seen really tries to convey very simple messages - brand identification being one of the major messages. More complex messages typically just aren't as powerful. Almost none of the advertising I've seen in modern, mainstream U.S. media deal issues. They just try to get you to remember the brand name. Of course, I'm not an expert on advertising - just another consumer, bombarded with advertising every day of my life :-)
For example, compare glancing at a typical magazine advertisment with reading a train schedule (or in the U.S., more often a bus schedule). The magazine ad is on glossy, high-quality paper in vibrant color, full of well-crafted images, often taking up an entire page larger than your average sheet of paper. The train/bus schedule is printed in black and white, or at most black and white and an additional color, on a single sheet of paper folded into thirds. The magazine ad only requires you to remember the brand identity, and possibly a single fact ("SALE at JC Penney's!"). The schedule requires you to sift through dozens or more schedules that are irrelevant to you, to get to the one piece of information you want.
Scott McCloud's _Understanding Comics_ has some interesting discussions of how "closure" leads the reader to connect two sequential images and build action between them. Comics, for that matter, seem to have mastered some of the problems of information design. The evolution of a visual "language" in how motion, action, violence, etc are expresed. McCloud's book is fascinating.
Speaking as a professional technical writer, a fundamental part of the job is questioning your own assumptions and seeing where they match and don't match the user's. The first thing I was told in the first writing course I took in college was to decide who my audience was. Everything I was taught (and have learned) after that only reinforces this. It's amazing how often the basics are forgotten.
More often, in my experience, it's a symptom of lack of clarity of purpose on the part of the people responsible for the message (although not necessarily on the part of those who craft the message). Most ambiguous, ill-worded documents are a result of ambiguous, ill-conceived ideas. Most often, the ambiguity and confusion result from people hedging their bets, avoiding responsibility, or failing to achieve a clear consensus.
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Advertising poses an interesting problem. Few of us would consider ads to be good communication, yet on the other hand, _effective_ ads reliably do something that few of us can claim to achieve in our more mundane efforts: they catch the viewers' attention and deliver a clear message to a diverse audience in 30 seconds or less. If we could figure out how to make our computer instructions, tax return "how to's" or research reports work that well, we'd be onto something powerful indeed! (Yes, I'm well aware of the strongly different contexts... it's the underlying principles, and how to apply them to different contexts, that fascinate me.)
Thread | Message Archive | Home
James Souttar (February 1, 1997)
David Sless wrote:
I'm sure that that is right, and that the methodology may be questionable. However, what struck me about this this survey was not that it marshalled an impressive array of statistics (the numbers were implied, but not stated) - but that it both 'chimed' with a feeling I have had for some time about information artefacts, and that it offered at least a hint of foreboding about the much vaunted 'infotopia' that is supposed to be our salvation.
Similarly, the comparison with advertising was prompted not by any particular set of metrics - but by observation of the facility we have (as a society) with the extraordinary oblique imagery of commercials [I should add that I'm speaking from a British perspective - where we have some of the most obscure, subtle and self-referential advertising]. This 'literacy' doesn't necessarily correlate with the response rates of the market researchers (in fact, one might expect that as 'media literacy' increases, consumer responses would become more difficult to engineer). So, I'm not sure how one could measure it - except anecdotally, which would probably not satisfy the exacting analytical mind of the information designer.
However, flawed as it may be, I do think there is there is some value in making a comparison between info-design and advertising. For a start, it is interesting to note that info-design has taken the approach of communicating by increasingly abstracting and verbalizing the message - whilst advertising has taken precisely the opposite route, increasingly contextualizing and visualizing the message. One would expect, therefore, some sort of correlation between verbal and analytical skills and 'information literacy' - and, similarly, a correlation between visual and synthetic skills and 'media literacy'. If this is the case, the OECD findings would seem to indicate a shift away from the former and towards the latter... (is this something we should bemoan, remedy or respond to?).
Another aspect of this comparison is the difference between the 'structures' of information artefacts and commercials. As Sean McNaughton points out, infodesign makes use of a non-linear 'information space'(which we engage with sequentially) - whilst advertising uses a narrative structure (which we engage with holistically). Furthermore, information artefacts attempt to bootstrap our understanding as if from first principles, whereas advertising is a hermeneutic circle (we can't understand it unless we already understand it). In these respects, information design shows its roots in the modernist experiment of intellectual reduction and abstraction ( = simplification, in the info-design paradigm?) and 'starting from zero' - whilst advertising echoes a far more ancient consciousness, rooted in the emotive and symbolic power of stories and images.
If information design is seen in this way - as paradigmatic of a (largely historical) move towards decontextualizing and abstracting messages - can we really claim to be right in suggesting that it is the *right way* to approach certain communication problems? Or does it become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy - that by artificially separating 'content' from 'context', it becomes the only possible way of providing structure and coherence to the disembodied fact?
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Robin Goodfellow (February 9,1997)
In the message by: Dick Ottevangers <dcotteva@xs4all.nl>
and
And in the message by: Steven Owens <puff@netcom.com>
and
This is part of the nature of the difference between competetive and non-competetive information (for want of better terms).
Advertising is about competing against other companies who all want the same group of people (the market) to buy their brand of products. The main thing the company wants is for their brand name to stand out from the crowd in order to reach their target market and be remembered the most clearly when there is a potential desire for a product in the consumer.
In contrast, with (for the example) a train schedule, or a tax form, the people who are reading the information are doing so because they want to or are obliged to; there is no competition here, plus, the information to be conveyed is much more complex as a range of information needs to be conveyed from which the reader selects only what they need.
Notice what happens when bus companies are competing over the same bus routes - does the schedule turn into a nice glossy, fold-out document with a full-colour graphic on the front cover, which is trying to say "pick me up and read me instead of the other ones"?
It seemed to me the discussion had gone highly in-depth and something basic may need to be raised again. (Am I wrong on this?)
Thread | Message Archive | Home
Cam Whetstone (February 9,1997)
Jay, I tend to agree. From my past experience, most information design (even advertising) relies heavily on the designers past experience. I grew up in a middle income family in the north eastern United States. how valid are my information content judgements for someone who grew up in a sharecroppers cabin in Mississippi? In fact, how valid are my judgements for someone who grew up in my town on 'the wrong side of the tracks'? Advertising is spending the bucks to investigate the psychological impact of their communications--we are not.
Thread | Message Archive | Home
James Souttar wrote:
Yes, I would agree in the sense that much of the hype about the 'infotopia' is simply unrealistic and unaware that the barriers to using information have very little to do with technology per se. But there is nothing new about the exagerated predictions of technology sales-people. The only difference in our time is the scale of the industry that is talking up the technology and the sheer amount of speculative investment that is riding on it. The higher the risk, the more brash the sales talk.
I'm less sure about the usefulness of the comparison with advertising.
James wrote:
This is far too sweeping a generalisation. Indeed I'm not sure to what specific examples James is refering. Most of the information design I get involved with does not fit into this distiction. Does anyone elses?
James, can you give us some *specific* examples?
Thread | Message Archive | Home