Information Design

in the professional communicators practice

Victor Diacono

Introduction

This paper sets out to adopt a definition for Information Design, from those offered by two leading academics. My proffered definition serves not only the benefits of identity and direction, but is also intended as a mission statement against which a sole authors practice can be measured. I shall be relating and evaluating my work experience to a selection of seminal literature on Information Design. I also offer a top-level critique of my practice (technical writing) and its environment, that of software development and related user help in the niche Human Resources sector. This paper evaluates my workplace experience, in the process pinpointing environmental issues hindering progress towards the completion of a holistic information structure. But it also finds that, once initial short-term crisis requests have been met, the original aim of a single source information framework hosting multiple media can be achieved. An adapted definition A Wikipedia search on Information Design, as one might have expected, will return a somewhat simplistic answer: information design is the skill and practice of preparing information so people can use it with efficiency and effectiveness. Rebecca Burnett, however, does not define Information Design in much greater depth in Technical Communication (2001, p.247) when she describes it as a field concerned with the ways in which you can organise and present info to affect readers comprehension. It too sounds too contrite a definition if one were to go by Karen Schrivers who, in Dynamics in Document Design (1997), not only seeks to define the field but also to evaluate the most appropriate among competing names. There is so much flux to the definition, in good part as a result of the emergence of new media, that there is even debate over whether it should be called Information Design, Document Design or Content Design. In fact, whereas Burnett dismisses Document Design as a subordinate function of Information Design, Schriver considers them two of three distinct competing names and suggests there is a predominant body of thought favouring Information Design because this definition views itself as a creator of information structures rather than isolated artefacts. I however opine that one can take a third bridged view and consider Information Design as representing an evolution from Document Design into the realm of information landscapes. And this as a consequence of the emergence of multiple and hybrid media which are supplanting unique and isolated artefacts of design and content. The resulting conclusion is that one will ultimately have to adopt a name and fluid definition that is not one academics dictum but an adaptation from amongst competing views, introducing an element of subjectivity on the adoptees part in the process. And, with the noun

design seemingly being the only element of concordance in these competing names, one can assume a degree of artistic licence (albeit grounded in an appreciation of the disparate views found in existing seminal literature) in defining the science of creating an effective, uncluttered, appealing and non-distractive presentation of visual, aural and graphic text. My personal choice of name is Information Design because it portrays a higher level of planning and architectural creativity, producing a holistic blueprint carrying one single-source message over multiple media. Schrivers choice of name for the field is evident from the title itself of her Dynamics in Document Design and proceeds to define it as the 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 (ibid p.10). My definition for my choice of name, Information Design, incorporates Schrivers description of Document Design as a definition of a subordinate and underlying practice but adds sound to the equation. I offer the following definition. Information Design is the practice concerning the creation of texts incorporating words, images and aural elements as an appealing, focused and easily assimilated artefact hosted by a structure defining the configuration and appearance of all artefacts therein. The workplace a profile of the documentation user The users of the workplace application upon which I place my analysis come from three levels of a client base. At the top end there is the corporate client where the Human Resources manager or their assistants operate the system, very often not in toto but according to their respective job designations or assigned responsibilities. This category of client mostly comprises the banking, communications and hospitality industries and governmental agencies and departments. There is then the medium level where an HR executive or the financial controller is directly engaged in the issuance of the payroll and ancillary data maintenance and reporting. Finally, there is the small business operation where a general duties clerk (if not the owner) issue the payroll, with no division of responsibility and very often with minimal requirements beyond the output of pay slips and mandatory Government reports. This last category very often utilises only the payroll system whereas the upper two levels run licences for a full suite of Payroll, Personnel and Time & Attendance packages. The following levels of user proficiency populate all three client categories to varying degrees although at the corporate level, it is most often the IT-proficient user who administers the system. The user levels I address, generally by targeting their least common denominator of proficiency, are: The just-IT-literate who use the package mechanically and often require call centre help. The IT-proficient user who generally finds his way about with only occasional requests for call centre assistance, and of a higher level of enquiry.

 The professional IT administrator with sufficient IT intuition or expertise to resolve issues, and assist colleague users, and who seeks call centre assistance only for high level database or systems administration enquiry. The new recruit. Help Desk agents who possess a high level of system expertise but will occasionally require reference to manuals or knowledge bases. The potential customer who requires marketing presentations, or manuals for the creation of test cases when evaluating a software package before purchase. The workplace an evaluation of document and environment A definition is vital for purposes of guiding and aligning oneself at the workplace especially where Information Design is being introduced in lieu of rudimentary word-processed notes. While rudimentary notes amount to a monologue bereft of any consideration to structure, presentation or audience, one has also to avoid the trap of employing an isolated aptitude at narration and textual presentation a bit of what Gillian Rose (2007) describes as methodologically silent, relying instead on the good eye. Schriver (1997, p.5) does however acknowledge that creating documents does require a discriminating eye as well as intelligent, deliberate design but the latter attribute can only ensue from formal training. One possible approach, upon taking on a new challenge, is for the author to seek familiarisation with the subject packages to a proficient level, to enable the adoption of the V-model approach I propose below. This V-model consists of looking at the software solutions GUI, decomposing it downwards by extracting a detailed list of system functionality (thrashing out functionality and GUI issues in the process), and taking the other side of the V back to the top in the form of a detailed step-by-step explanation targeted at the lowest common denominator of audience aptitude. This proposed model, in its top-to-bottom trajectory during the decomposition process, is similar to the Top-Down Approach in Systems Analysis. The bottom-up composition process commencing at the other side of the V comprises the development of the textual artefact itself. Schriver (ibid p.5) states that design is often construed as taking place after having decided what is to be said, virtually relegating information design to packaging already structured messages, and that this effectively precludes planning and the assimilation of competing views. And even the most diligent author can at times fall foul of Schrivers damning judgment of giving punch by using a daring typeface or making it sizzle by adding color or illustrations. This sizzling-up of the artefact, if seen in the light of the more fundamental definition of noise attributed by some theorists, will even distort the core message the structure is intended to carry. An inappropriate layout on the page can create dissonance and thus function as noise (Schutte and Steinberg 1983, pp.27-28). Schuttes and Steinbergs view of noise is all-encompassing of any textual elements prone to dissonance but the diligent author has at least to ensure that grammatical structure, possibly the most critical element, is succinct and

that individual chunks of instruction have been spelt out in detailed and exhaustive fashion. The absence of a spatial element, the element Rebecca Burnett identifies in Technical Communication (2001) as the second in a trio of defining elements of Information Design along with the textual and the graphic, will also weigh somewhat negatively on the authors portfolio. In spite of the authors best intentions and diligence, however, pressures of deadlines and a hectic fast turnaround culture make it very easy, and often inevitable, to fall into the trap of relegating oneself into the role of the technician who pours messages into templates for smoothing and shaping (Schriver 1997, p.6). This is the consequence of cost considerations and an expectation of immediately visible productivity and directly quantifiable return. The technical communicators role, when subjected to unnecessarily or unrealistically tight deadlines, can be easily seen in its straight and narrow definition of producing the rudimentary user manual or technical document. Consequently, an authors point of departure when taking on a new challenge can often be that of document designer but endeavoring to eventually move in the direction of information designer when, from the design of isolated artefacts, he or she can for instance take on the compilation of courseware which in turn is to be edited and fed into video tutorials or marketing presentations. This would effectively translate into media and structures being developed to host content from a single source. It is for this reason that I do not select the restrictive Document Design for field name as the role can be conceptualized, in its evolution to full maturity, as one of designing information in its comprehensive remit of structure as well as content. Seen from this perspective, Document Design would imply an artefactual approach giving insufficient consideration to the element of a structural framework built to host single source content on different media. While a product can be strong on art (and dedicated software can greatly enhance the visual part of the artistic element), the fusion of art and design can only happen when workplace constraints seen earlier give way to the methodological construction of a comprehensive documentation framework. And while the reader does have to be kept in mind as the major stakeholder in the end-product, observing the reader interacting with a document can never really happen in the restricted environment of the sole authors except in the limited scenario of courseware usage during training sessions. The benefit of observation that can be had in this environment is thus severely curtailed and most of it will have to be attained from the literature (and ensuing reflection) which is in line with the landscape the author operates in. Another formidable hurdle the author can come across is D.A. Normans (1988) creeping featurism which can find its way into a software system not only in Normans scenario of a conscious design choice to add bells and whistles to a product in the misguided belief it will enhance it. It can also rear its head for reasons of pragmatism at the software development stage or of manageability of system growth unconnected to the end user. And if a system is marketed as open to bespoke requirements, several functions of interest only to individual

categories of clients will find their way into the system if a host of de facto industry-specific applications is to be avoided. The most likely side-effect is a voluminous system menu, and a tome for a manual, thereby weighing heavily on understandability and user confidence apart from portraying the impression of a learning curve much steeper than that necessary for any one installation to operate. Contrary to Normans belief that the consequence of creeping featurism is having to make more things invisible, in this case it is the visibility of features redundant to any one installation that contributes to a feeling of insecurity in the user. Conclusion Karen Schriver states that many documents fail because they are so ugly that no one will read them or so confusing that no one will understand them (Dynamics in Document Design 1997, p.xxiii). However, documents can also fail because of a lack of appreciation of the resources of time and collaboration required to produce an understandable and visually appealing artefact. Under such a scenario, the technical communicator has to accept the short-term onus of delivering on crisis requests while putting in place a holistic information architecture deriving from the definition of Information Design adopted earlier. Bibliography
Anon. (September 2009). Information design. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. [online]. Last accessed 12 July 2010 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_design Burnett, R. (2001). Technical Communication. Boston (MA), Thomson Heinle. Coe, M. (1996). Human Factors for Technical Communicators. New York, John Wiley & Sons. Dujardin, F. and Williams, N. (December 2009). Workbook 2.a: Perspectives in information design. Sheffield (England), Sheffield Hallam University. Dujardin, F. and Williams, N. (December 2009). Workbook 2.b: The practice of information design. Sheffield (England), Sheffield Hallam University. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, Basic Books, pp. 172-173. In: Schriver, K. (1997). Dynamics in document design. New York, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 238-239. Rose, G. (2007). Content analysis: counting what you (think you) see. In: Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials. 2nd ed. London, Sage, pp.59-73. Schriver, K. (1997). Dynamics in document design. New York, John Wiley & Sons. Schutte, W.M. and Steinberg, E.R. (1983). Communication in business and industry. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 27-28. In: Schriver, K. (1997). Dynamics in document design. New York, John Wiley & Sons, p. 7.