Article
on Information Design
models | processes
techniques | links
resources
on i.d. business and management
home
|
Article
|
models | processes |
by Saul Carliner
Document design is
a field concerned with creating texts (broadly defined) that integrate words and pictures in ways that help people to achieve their specific goals for using texts at home, school, or work (Schriver, 1997).
Since Felker, Pickering, Charrow, Holland, and Redish published the first Guidelines for Document Designers in 1981, the guidelines revolutionized and focused technical communicators on producing functional, readable documents.
Although document design is intended to focus the efforts of communicators on helping readers achieve their goals, in practice, the appearance of pages and screens, and the editorial quality of the writing predominate. Consider this advertisement for a session for technical communicators on designing web pages that was held at a recent conference:
The magical formula for designing successful web pages is:
content + writing style + layout = information design (www.uie.com)
Where are the readers' goals in this magical formula?
This focus on text and appearance in the practice of document design is not isolated to this ad. Consider informal comments by many technical communication students who study document design. They want to learn how to design pages, failing to recognize that a well-designed page only addresses the surface—and does not compensate for an unusable product design or an incompletely thought-through technical concept. Consider the many technical writers who begin software documentation assignments by first choosing a help authoring systems, then considering the content. The purpose of an authoring system is to assist communicators in achieving their goals for the content.
Somehow, the practice of design as appearance improving has replaced the concept of design as problem-solving, even though published definitions of document design suggest otherwise. Perhaps that’s because the source material is primarily a series of guidelines of dos and don’ts for technical communication products—a cookbook of sorts. Although few read the source material any more (the original Guidelines are out of print), technical communicators still focus on discrete issues, such as the most appropriate font color and size, and the most usable arrangement of information on the screen, as if a single answer served every context.
Recognizing this limitation, other approaches have been offered to supplement the concept of document design. Many of these broader approaches emerge from practice or studies of practice:
Each approach addresses a different limitation of document design, but none comprehensively incorporates the strengths of each approach or describes their relationship of each issue to one another.
Perhaps these limitations of document design have spurred some technical communicators to embrace a notion called information design. Indeed, some call themselves information designers or information architects. Privately, these people say that identify themselves as information designers to say "I’m not a technical stenographer," "I do more than wordsmith programming specifications" or "make pages and screens look good." Like architects of buildings, information designers look at the bigger picture: what problem is the client trying to solve, what can I bring into play to address it, and how does this solution support the larger business situation.
But what is information design? The Vienna-based Information Design Association admits that information
design can be hard to define, because it is an interdisciplinary approach which combines skills in graphic design, writing and editing, illustration, and human factors. Information designers seek to combine skills in these fields to make complex information easier to understand ( 1997).
Without a cogently defined definition that distinguishes information design from document design, and without offering an alternative to document design, information design looks like nothing more than a marketing ploy.
Recent professional and scholarly activity has attempted to move information into an academic discussion. Most of that activity has happened in the circles of architects and graphic designers. For example, architect Richard Saul Wurman’s 1996 Information Architects presents case studies of practical information that has been designed for effective, easy use. The edited collection Information Design (Jacobson, 1999) primarily applies graphic and architectural design theory to the design of communication products.
This special issue of Technical Communication is intended to show applications of information design to technical communication. This article is presents a framework of thinking—a model of sorts—of information design. This framework focuses on design in a broad sense and considers not only at the physical design of a communication product, but also at its cognitive and affective design, as well as the business constraints affecting the design. This article first offers a definition of information design, then presents a model that explores design from three perspectives of interest: physical, cognitive, and affective. Last, this article suggests the limits and strengths of the framework being proposed.
Before defining what information design is, a consideration of design in general might be appropriate. According to Rowland:
Some argue that a science of design is possible and represents an important goal. Cross, reporting on a number of studies in design, argues that design is quite different from science. While scientists focus on the problem, on discovering the rule that is operating, designers focus on the solution, on achieving the desired result (1993, p. 81).
He concludes that design is ultimately personal choices based on a sense of what is "right."
In other words, design is a problem-solving discipline. It considers more than the appearance of the designed product, but also the underlying structure of the solution and its anticipated reception by users. Because design is focused on solving problems, a design theory must provide more than a series of guidelines about discrete characteristics of the solution, it focus designers on the identifying the problem, a framework for identifying and considering the inter-related issues that must be addressed in a solution, and help designers developing their instincts about for choosing "right" solutions.
Figure 1 lists the many definitions that have been offered for information design. Some are no different than the definition of document design, with a primary focus on text and pictures. Others take a broader view, focusing on defining the problem and designing effective solutions.
If information design primarily focuses on issues of appearance and text, it is neither distinct from document design nor solves the problem of the limited focus of document design in most practice and current research.
Information design must therefore have a broader focus, one that encompasses not only graphics and text, and reader goals, but also the goals of the sponsor who commissioned the text. Therefore, information design is defined as:
Preparing communication products so that they achieve performance objectives established for them. This involves
1. Analyzing communication problems
2. Establishing performance objectives that, when achieved, address these objectives
3. Developing a blueprint for a communication effort to address those objectives
4. Developing the components of the planned communication effort solution
5. Evaluating the ultimate effectiveness of the effort
Some of the terms in this definition have specific meanings.
Inherent in this definition of information design is the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model that is widely used in instructional design (Gustafson, 1991) and similar to ones used in software engineering.
Figure 1: Definitions of Information Design (Most of these definitions were found on the website for the Information Design Association.)
|
This new model approaches the design on three levels. These are adapted from the three levels that theorists in education and instructional design consider when designing courses (Dick & Carey, 1990).
In the next three sections, I address each of the levels in detail, explaining what it is, how it relates to current conversations in technical communication, and name the elements of design and some of the key design issues addressed.
The first type of design is the physical. From the users' perspective, physical design pertains to their ability to find information of interest and its general appearance. For example, if users seek information about the DOS command named "dir," can they locate that information?
The design issues associated with physical level typically are typically those associated with the traditional practice of document design. These issues include:
Physical design plays an important role in the overall design of communication products. But physical design elements are only cosmetic if they are not considered as part of a larger, goal-oriented framework. That's where intellectual plays a key role.
The second level of design is the cognitive, or intellectual level. That is, once readers find information, can they understand it and make use of it? For example, once readers find the description of the "dir" command, can they follow the instructions and actually use it?
People who call themselves information designers typically address cognitive design issues. Richard Saul Wurman calls this "the understanding business (1989)."
Cognitive design primarily focuses on the design process: adequately defining the users' performance goals and preparing a solution that addresses them. Mirel (1999) suggests the need to for technical communicators to shape instructions around problems experienced by users in work contexts and adopt problem-based instruction. The instructional systems design (ISD), which is widely used by instructional designers (Foshay, 1997, Wedman & Tessmer, 1993, Zemke & Lee, 1987) offers a framework for such a model.
Although cited as a model, ISD is actually just a process for designing instructional programs so that they achieve key learning objectives (Dick & Carey, 1991). In this process, however, it provides a structure for considering the countless issues that must be addressed when analyzing and defining the problem, and devising its solution. For example, ISD addresses issues such as usability (in its call for clear objectives and formative evaluation), adjusting to the styles of learners, and re-using or adapting existing courses if they meet the stated objectives of the proposed course.
In the sense that it follows a sequence of activities to identify the users and their performance goals, and provide them with the right information at the right time, cognitive design can be seen as a process. Specifically, the design process consists of the following activities:
Although central to it, the design process is only one part of cognitive design. The other part involves reflecting on the intellectual capacities and needs of users, and crafting an appropriate solution. Designers can consider these issues from a number of perspectives.
Cognitive psychology explores the ways in which the human brain processes information. By applying this knowledge, information designers can "pre-digest" information to minimize the processing needed, just as LactAidÒ pre-digests lactose so that people with a lactose intolerance can eat and drink dairy products.
Design theories, such as human performance technology, minimalism, user-centered design, and constructivism, also inspire cognitive design. Although each has a unique definition, their goals are remarkably similar: providing users with the most appropriate information, at the time and place of need.
Because users are exposed to more messages in the media than they can effectively address, information designers must also consider information overload. Some solutions involve physical design, such as communicating through visuals rather than words. Some solutions involve cognitive design, such as creatively structuring information and practicing benevolent censorship of less essential information (Wurman, 1989).
Another consideration for cognitive design is reusing information. In some instances, organizations would like to reuse information in part or whole. For example, television news organizations often use the same story in several different newscasts, editing the story to fit the length and slant of the program. In other instances, organizations need to mix and match information, such as creating a new manual for Model B by adapting the manual for Model A with the fewest necessary modifications. Or, an organization might let readers mix and match modules of information so that they have seemingly customized communication products based on their specific needs. To design information once and use it again in a variety of contexts with few or no changes, requires careful design of individual units of information and consideration of all possible uses.
A final issue of cognitive design is reconciling design plans with business realities. Most technical communication projects are constrained by budgets, schedules, editorial guidelines, or some combination of these. According to Schriver, expert document designers can deftly coordinate design and business priorities (1999), yet few design models actually incorporate these issues.
The last level of design is the affective, or designing for emotional impact. That is, if users can find the information they need and understand it, is it written in such a way that users can choose to use it and perform the intended tasks? For example, if users find and read information about the "dir" command, do they want to use it after all?
The issues associated with affective design typically fall into an emerging realm called communication design. Following are the elements of affective design.
Affective design often poses some of the greatest challenges to technical communicators. Technical communicators often seek formulaic approaches to communication design, such as the 5 issues to avoid when writing for international audiences. (Perhaps it is this tendency that has limited document design from being used in its fullest definition.) But the complexity of these issues defy simplistic responses.
Rather, they involve anticipating the impact of communication on intended audiences and the clients that commission the work, and addressing the negative fallout that might result. That is, communication design is a form of "documentation therapy," in which technical communicators diagnose communication and performance issues, and offer recommendations.
Several strengths characterize this three-part framework. The first is that it addresses the broad focus of today’s technical communicators. Over the past 2 to 3 decades, technical communicators’ responsibilities have grown from that of wordsmiths of technical specifications to designers and testers of user interfaces. This model acknowledges that broader role.
A second strength is that the framework incorporates the diverse work of technical communicators into a single frame of reference. Some technical communicators work on desktop publishing, others design interfaces, and still others consult on various aspects of change management. This model encompasses all of those roles and places them in an appropriate context.
A third strength of this framework addresses many of the issues raised in the academic community of technical communicators, but only given passing acknowledgement in the professional community. Although the framework does not necessarily resolve some of the debates and incorporates viewpoints that some groups within the technical communication community do not openly acknowledge, it provides voice for these diverse approaches and lets designers determine for themselves how to resolve any differences.
A final strength of this framework is that it displays the growing influences of related fields. For example, in its process orientation, the model displays the influences of software engineering (Hackos, 1994) and instructional design. In its acknowledgement of the physical, cognitive, and affective, the framework acknowledges the influences of educational psychology. In its emphasis on measurement and evaluation, the framework acknowledges the influences of adult learning theory and business management.
But the model admittedly suffers from some limitations. The first is that it is prescriptive. That is, the model prescribes the way practice should work; actual practice could substantially vary from the framework as is suggested by studies into the actual use of models of instructional systems design process (Zemke & Lee, 1987; Wedman & Tessmer, 1993).
A second limitation relates to the first: the overlap among levels. For example, although they are listed as elements of physical design, writing and substantive editing skills are also elements of cognitive and affective design. Naming an issue and placing it within the context of the framework calls attention to the issue, but does not always adequately describe the full breadth of the issue. Such clear distinctions do not always exist.
Finally, the framework incorporates research and theory, but does not directly emerge from it. That is, it provides a structure for considering many issues addressed by the research and how it relates within a larger context. But the framework itself is the creation of one mind; it did not emerge from an observation or review of practice.
If it gains acceptance, this framework can have a wide variety of implications to the field of technical communication.
At the least, this design framework could re-focus design from physical design elements to a problem-solving process. Physical design elements would be considered not only from how they promote readability in general, but how they specifically help readers address the specific goals they have for a given text.
At the most, this design framework could influence education, practice, and research in technical communication. The side bars, Implications of this Model to Teaching, Implications of this Model to Research, and Implications of this Model to Practice suggest some specific applications of this model.
Bowie, John. S. (1996.) p.6-7. Information Engineering: Using Information to Drive Design. Intercom. 43(5). 6-10 and 43.
Carliner, Saul. (1997) Demonstrating the Effectiveness and Value of Technical Communication products and services: a four-level process. Technical communication. 44(3).
Carliner, Saul. (1994.) Guest editorial: a practitioner's call for the STC to establish a research agenda. Technical communication. 41(4).
Carliner, Saul and Fredrickson, Lola. (in press). Quality: it's a judgment call. In R. Grice and L. Ridgeway, eds. Improving quality and productivity of communication: theory and practice. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication.
Carroll, John. (1990). The Nurenberg Funnel: designing minimalist instruction for practical computer skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Charney, Davida. (1997.) From Logocentrism to Ethocentrism: Historicizing Critiques of Writing Research. Technical Communication Quarterly. 7(1).
Dick, Walter. & Carey, Lou. (1990.) The Systematic Design of Instruction. (3rd ed.) New York: HarperCollins.
Dumas , Joseph S. and Redish, Janice C. (1999). A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Intellect.
Felker, D. B., Pickering, F., Charrow, V. R., Holland, V. M., and Redish, J. C. (1981.) Guidelines for document designers. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Flower, Linda. Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989.
Foss, Sonja. (1995.) Rhetorical Criticism : Exploration & Practice. Waveland Press.
Fredrickson, Lola. (1992.) Quality in Technical Communication: A Definition for the 1990s. Technical Communication. 39(3). p.394-399.
Foshay, R. Wellesley (1997.) Fourth Generation Instructional Design. International Society for Performance Improvement Conference. Anaheim: April 18, 1997.
Gustafson, Kent. L. (1991.) Survey of Instructional Development Models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.
Hackos, J. T. (1994.) Managing your documentation projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Gurak, Laura. (1999.) Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace : The Online Protests over Lotus Marketplace and the Clipper Chip. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hackos, JoAnn. (1994.) Managing your documentation projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Hackos, JoAnn and Redish, Janice. (1998.) User and task analysis for interface design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Hoft, N. (1995.) International Technical Communication: How to Export Information about High Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Information Design Association. http://members.magnet.at/simlinger-iiid/English-2.html
Jacobson, Robert. Introduction: why information design matters. In Jacobson, Robert (editor). (1999.) Information design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Killingsworth, M. J. (1996.) Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 39(2). 107-8.
Kostelnick, Charles and David D. Roberts. (1998.) Designing Visual Language: Strategies for Professional Communicators. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
Kostur, Pamela. (1999.) Developing Single-Source Documentation. New Orleans, Louisiana, International Professional Communication Conference. September 10, 1999.
Mager, Robert. (1997.) Preparing Instructional Objectives : A Critical Tool in the Development of Effective Instruction (third edition). Atlanta: Center for Effective Performance.
Mager, Robert. (1997.) Measuring Instructional Results (third edition). Atlanta: Center for Effective Performance.
Mirel, Barbara. (1998.) 'Applied Constructivism" for User Documentation: Alternative to Conventional Task-Orientation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 11(1). 7-49.
Norman, Donald. (1990.) The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.
Robinson, D. & Robinson, J. (1989.) Training for Impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Rossett, Allison. (1987.) Training Needs Assessment. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.
Rowland, G. (1993.) Designing and Instructional Design. Educational Technology Research and Development. 41(1). pp. 79-91.
Sakson, Donna. (1996.) Keynote presentation. 1996 Society for Technical Communication Student Conference. Macon, Georgia. March 21, 1996.
Sauer, Beverly. A Comment on "Women and Feminism in Technical Communication: A Qualitative Analysis of Journal Articles." Journal of Business and Technical Communication 13(4). P.463.
Schriver, Karen. (1997.) Dynamics of Document Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Schriver, Karen. (1999.) The Evolution of Software User Assistance from the Perspectives of Information Designers and Users. Online help conference. Winwriter’s, Inc. Seattle, Washington. February 22, 1999.
Stolovich, Harold and Keeps, Erica (editors). (1999.) Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Improving Individual and Organizational Performance Worldwide (second edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Trice, H. M. & Beyer, J. M. (1993.) The Cultures of Work Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wedman, J. & Tessmer, M. (1993.) Instructional Designer's Decisions and Priorities: a Survey of Design Practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 6(2). pp. 43-57.
Willis, Verna. (1990.) Presentation to the Atlanta Chapter of the International Society for Performance Improvement. March, 1990.
Wurman, Richard Saul. (1996.) Information architects. Graphis Press.
Wurman, Richard Saul. (1989.) Information Anxiety: What to Do When Information Doesn't Tell You What You Need to Know. New York: Doubleday.
Zemke, R. and Lee, C. (1987.) How Long Does It Take? TRAINING. 24(6). pp. 75-80.
models | processes | techniques | resources on i.d. business and management | home
(c) Copyright. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. Saul Carliner. All rights reserved.