MX Design Conference – Envisioning Design for the XXI century

Sharpening One’s Axe: Making a Case for a Comprehensive Approach to

Research in the Graphic Design Process
Paul J. Nini
Associate Professor
Chairperson, Graduate Studies Committee
Coordinator, Undergraduate Visual Communication Design Program
Department of Design, The Ohio State University
373 Hopkins Hall, 128 N Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1318
614. 292-1077, [email protected], www.design.osu.edu

Keywords
Design process, viewer-centered research.

Abstract
“If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I’d spend six sharpening my axe.” – Abraham Lincoln.

Mr. Lincoln’s advice is, of course, very good, and applicable to many pursuits. Yet many graphic
design practitioners and students often routinely ignore this sentiment, and dive directly into form-
making activities when presented with a design problem. In most cases we tend to rely on intuition
and our “best guess” to construct a solution, without the benefit of the various types of research that
might provide a clearer insight as to how our efforts might be more effectively directed. Our profession
might be characterized, if you will, as “swinging a dull axe.”

I intend, therefore, to put forward a concept for a comprehensive model that incorporates the various
types of research activities that graphic designers might employ in the process of creating effective
solutions to the problems we generally address. These activities will be tied to a typical model of the
design process, which involves such basic steps as problem investigation, analysis and planning, and
synthesis and evaluation. The types of research activities discussed will include: gathering and
analyzing competitors’ efforts and related approaches to similar projects; establishing criteria for
evaluating design efforts; and approaches to soliciting generative, evaluative, and experiential
feedback from users and audiences members.

As well, different methods of user research techniques will be demonstrated, including survey
research (what viewers say), observational research (what viewers do), and participatory research
(what viewers make). Discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of these techniques as they apply
to typical projects will be discussed. Finally, examples of student work will be included, as will
explanations of the kinds of research techniques used to inform these design solutions.

The goal of this paper is to present the basic information needed for graphic designers to consider
incorporating the demonstrated research techniques in their work. It is my hope that more graphic
designers will pursue a research-based approach to the process of creating appropriate and effective
communications for the various users and audience groups for which they design.

Introduction and acknowledgements

The approach described in this paper results from a view of design as a problem-solving activity — as
opposed to a view that primarily stresses self-expression. A number of the research activities
employed are viewer-centered, and require direct involvement of members of the user groups or
audience groups for whom the communication is intended. Both quantitative and qualitative research
methods are used as would be appropriate to the particular design problem, sometimes combined
within a single research activity. Please also note that the terms "audience" and "user" are used to
denote two slightly different meanings in this paper. Audiences are generally considered to be larger
groups of viewers, and the research methods discussed in regard to audience-centered projects are
mostly perceptual in nature (such as measuring impressions of trademark concepts). On the other
hand, users are often considered to be smaller groups of viewers, and the research methods
discussed in regard to user-centered projects are mostly performance-based (such as measuring a
users ability to locate a destination via viewing existing signage in an environment).

The specific research methods discussed have been explored and written about by many others, and
the past works of fellow design educators Allmendinger (1996), Byrne (1990), Frascara (2004, 1997),
Poggenpohl (1996), Roth (1999), and Sanders (2002) have been extensively drawn upon. As well, the
work of researchers in engineering and the social sciences have been referenced, including
publications by Clarkson, et al (2003), Schuler and Namioka (1993), and Scrivener, et al (2000). Two
much older (but still very applicable) texts have also been drawn upon — Cherry’s description of the
process of human communication (1957), and Osgood’s use of the semantic differential as a tool for
measuring basic viewer response to visual communications (1967). The work of all of the above
authors is gratefully acknowledged as the foundation for this paper.

This writing is also a continuation of the author’s past work, including a recent call for a more inclusive
and user-centered approach to graphic design practice (Nini, 2002), and the results of a large-scale
survey of US graphic design practitioners concerning their involvement with design research activities
(Nini, 1996). Finally, many thanks to the design students at the Ohio State University for their hard
work, and for the use of the project results shown and discussed below.

Creating a model of the design process

While every designer’s approach to designing differs somewhat, it is possible to construct a model of
the design process that includes the basic tasks and activities involved. The below model is
represented in a linear fashion, as earlier steps often precede later ones. We all know, however, that
real life is often not so neatly organized, and that the particular path we might take on a given project
may vary from the one presented here. The main value of a process model, therefore, is its ability to
act as a kind of guide to our efforts, allowing us to tailor it to the needs of the project at hand.

The basic design process can be broken into two distinct phases (above). The first phase is devoted
to investigation of the design problem, and the creation of strategies to address the specific issues
found. The second phase is devoted to developing design concepts and further refined prototypes
and solutions. Concurrent with each stage of development in the second phase are iterative rounds of
user or audience testing, which allow specific improvements to be made prior to implementation. At
this point it is also possible for the entire process to begin again, as user or audience testing after
introduction of the communication may reveal possibilities for further generations or editions.
Activities typical to each phase (above) include an audit of competing or similar design efforts, and the
creation of desirable attributes for the designed communications. A better awareness of the state of
the art is achieved through the first activity, while the second can supply agreed-upon criteria for
eventual testing in phase two. Users and audience members can then provide input into the
organization of content and basic visual approach of design concepts — while also providing
evaluation of design prototypes for further refinement and development, and experience using final
communications after their introduction.

Finally, it’s also helpful to consider the three main methods for conducting user or audience research
(above) as part of the design process. Survey research can be used to determine impressions
concerning various aspects of designed communications, while behavioral research can provide
insight through observation of users’ actions. Participatory research can allow for a partnering with
users to create communications that meet specific needs for particular contexts.
Using the design process model as a planning tool
The complete process model as shown above can also be used as a tool to plan specific research
activities for most types of visual communication design projects. While almost all projects will require
the basic steps outlined in phase one, different types of user or audience research would be
employed elsewhere in the process, depending on the nature of the project.

By using the model to consider all possible combinations of research methods, specific user and
audience research plans can be created as needed. Below is an example of a research plan specific
to corporate identification design. As a primary goal of this type of project is to create a particular
impression in the minds of audience members, it’s appropriate that survey research tools be mainly
used to gauge the success of both existing and proposed design efforts.

Notice the similarities of the top two individual research plans (below), created for interaction +
interface design projects and environmental graphic + wayfinding design projects, respectively. As
both types of projects mainly concern users navigating space (whether virtual or physical), it’s
appropriate that behavioral research be the predominant method used. The final research plan
(below), created for task-oriented information design projects, uses all three audience and user
research methods — due to the potentially more complex nature of the problem, and the need to work
more closely with the user group throughout the design process.
Not all user and audience research methods are appropriate or effective for all types of graphic design
problems. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each method, the designer can
construct a logical and workable research plan for any given project, and combine the above research
methods as called for by the nature of the problem at hand.

Examples of student projects using this research approach

Following are examples of undergraduate student projects from the visual communication design
program at the Ohio State University, where the basic research approach just described has been
introduced and put into use. Some of the projects are fairly simple and short-term, as would be
appropriate to basic graphic design courses, while others are more complex and long-term, as would
be appropriate to more advanced course-work.

Above (left) is the outcome of a basic-level graphic design course project, where students are asked
to create visual representations of opposing concepts, and then conduct a simple audience-testing
exercise to measure the effectiveness of their efforts (results at the right, above). Students first
construct compositions by hand (with no words appearing to label the concepts), and use these
versions to test with audience members. They show each composition to twenty randomly chosen
viewers, who are asked to complete a semantic differential survey form and rank a particular concept
with five associated words and their antonyms.

Students then create a graph (as above, right) that displays the average viewer responses on the
semantic differential scale. Audience responses to compositions that properly convey the intended
properties will naturally fall to the appropriate side of the scale. Students also consider any written
responses from viewers while refining their compositions, and then create final versions on the
computer (where the original concept words are added). The basic process of defining desirable
attributes for their efforts, creating and testing a visual concept, and refining that concept based on
viewer response is introduced through this project, and gives beginning students a glimpse of the
approach that will be used throughout their subsequent courses.
Survey research is also applied in an intermediate-level course project, the development of a visual
mark as part of a corporate identification system. To the left (above) is a student created mark for an
organization providing environmental clean-up services, along with application of the mark to various
items. To the right are average audience responses to a list of desirable attributes, including the
words organic, clean, wet, nurturing, calm, healthy, fresh, and natural. Almost all of the attributes were
perceived as intended in this case, falling to the desired side of the scale. Students gather viewer
responses using a fairly tight black and white sketch of the mark, so that any refinements prior to
implementation can incorporate suggestions or comments that come from audience member
responses to the design concept.

Behavioral research is also employed in the development of interactive media, such as the above
examples from an advanced-level student web-design project. In this case, the student observed
users navigating other e-commerce sites, noticing problems with how various visual interfaces
presented the idea of a virtual “shopping cart.” This led the student to allow users to drag objects into
a scrolling field (at the bottom of the screen designs) that presented smaller images of the items to be
purchased, thus giving users a visual reference of their shopping choices. The student then tested this
interface concept with users, and refined the interaction design based on further feedback and
evaluation.
Similarly, advanced-level students engage in behavioral research in the context of environmental
graphics and wayfinding systems design. The images to the left (above) are some concepts for
exterior signs to identify the major entrances of visual and performing arts buildings on the Ohio State
campus. Students observed the flow of people entering the various buildings throughout the day, and
developed customized signs that took advantage of optimal placements, based on likely views from
approaching the buildings on foot (the typical manner that almost all users access the buildings).

They also used digital video as a tool to track users navigating the interiors of various campus arts
buildings, looking for situations where confusion arose in a consistent manner. These observations
gave them insight into critical locations for the placement of interior wayfinding signs, where full-scale
mock-ups could then be placed and tested for their effectiveness. The images to the right (above) are
still images from one student group’s final video presentation, where they asked several arts students
to find the Dean’s office, and documented the resulting problems with completing that particular task.

The final examples (below) are from a task-oriented information design project, completed by an
advanced-level student. In this case, the student used mostly participatory user research methods to
develop a cookbook for individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities. Working
closely with users (and their caretakers) in a group home, the student was able to evaluate various
approaches to displaying cooking information in the kitchen setting, and eventually develop the most
effective presentation.

An early concept was a poster display, using clearly numbered rows of information presented in
sequential steps. Testing uncovered, however, that the users did not necessarily follow the horizontal
rows, and were more apt to move vertically down the page to obtain the information. These findings
led to a much simpler approach in book form, with no more than two steps presented on a single
page, or a total of four steps on a spread of two pages. This organization allowed the users to follow
the sequence successfully, and kept them from being overwhelmed by too much simultaneous
information. Further user evaluation of mock-ups resulted in a final book format with large page sizes
(for viewing from a distance of a few feet), laminated pages (in case of spills) and wire binding (so the
book could lay flat on the kitchen counter). All of these design decisions were a direct result of the
process of partnering with the users in the development of the communication.
Some final analysis and comments
The above student projects represent results of course work completed in no more than ten weeks,
the length of an academic term at The Ohio State University. Compared to the time and resources
available to professional designers and researchers involved with similar projects, the research
activities and student outcomes may be somewhat lacking in depth, and most likely do not provide
definitive solutions to the particular design problems addressed. As well, due to a lack of available
documentation, the kinds of data typically reviewed by serious researchers are not presented in this
paper. The students’ results do, however, represent their initial experiences involving interactions with
viewers, and provide a stepping-stone to continue such activities as design professionals. In fact,
many Ohio State alumni have taken on leadership roles in the profession, expanding and building
upon the research techniques previously discussed, while successfully applying them to a variety of
visual communication problems.

In most cases students are accepting and enthusiastic in regard to viewer-centered approaches to
graphic design. While some resistance is initially encountered, it usually disappears quickly, once
students realize that interacting with viewers allows them to create potentially more effective results.
Similarly, most users and audience members are generally grateful for the opportunity to voice their
opinion on communications meant for their use — though there is always a small minority that view
any attempt to interact with them as an intrusion, and prefer not to be bothered.

Working with viewers can also have potential liability issues for students, institutions of higher
learning, and design practitioners. It’s a very good idea to require that all users and audience
members sign a waiver form agreeing to participate in the study, and to give permission to the
researcher to use the results as necessary. Many universities require review and pre-approval of any
research that involves human subjects, and that process, while time consuming, must be followed.
Professional designers would do well to consult with a legal advisor concerning similar steps that they
might take to protect themselves when working with users and audience members.

To conclude, many graphic design education programs tend to impart the values of the artist to
students, stressing the concept of an individual with a strong personal viewpoint to express through
their work. While this approach can make for some very interesting visual results, it seems a bit
narrow in its focus when one considers the very real and important needs of the various users and
audience members who experience our work on a daily basis. By focussing so strongly on our own
interests and agenda, we run the risk of excluding or alienating those for whom the communications
we develop are intended. It can be easily argued that one of our most important contributions to
society is the simple act of creating communications that are effective for audiences and users. But
this goal can not be achieved without first making the step to identify and include those individuals for
whom we design, so that they may fully participate in the process of creating useful communications.

Therefore, I urge all graphic design faculty members to examine the values they impart to their
students through their programs, and make adjustments as deemed necessary. For those that wish to
pursue a more inclusive approach, I hope that this paper offers some guidance as to how such a
design process could be structured. There is still much exploration needed in this area, and I welcome
all designers and educators to join my colleagues and me in this important undertaking.

Sources
ALLMENDINGER, L. (editor) 1996. “Workshop Notes: Research and Information Development.” Graphic Design Journal, 4,
The Society of Graphic Designers of Canada, pp. 22 – 25.

BYRNE, K., 1990. “Crossdisciplinary Teaching: Audience-Centered Design.” Proceedings of the 1990 Graphic Design
Education Association’s National Symposium, pp. 99 – 106.

CHERRY, C., 1957. On Human Communication. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

CLARKSON, J., R. COLEMAN, S. KEATES, C. LEBBON (editors). 2003. Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population,
London: Springer Verlag.

FRASCARA, J., 2004. Communication Design: Principals, Methods, and Practice. New York: Allworth Press.

FRASCARA, J., 1997. User-Centered Graphic Design: Mass Communications and Social Change. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.

NINI, P., 2002. “A Manifesto of Inclusivism.” In: Looking Closer 4, Critical Writings on Graphic Design. Michael Bierut,
William Drenttel, Steven Heller (editors). New York: Allworth Press and the American Institute of Graphic Arts, pp. 196 – 199.

NINI, P, 1996. “What Graphic Designers Say They Do.” Information Design Journal, 8 (2), pp. 181 – 188.

OSGOOD, C., 1967. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

POGGENPOHL, S., 1996. “Why We Need Design Research.” Graphic Design Journal, 4, The Society of Graphic Designers
of Canada, pp. 20 – 21.

ROTH, S., 1999. “The State of Design Research.” Design Issues, 15 (2), pp. 18 – 26.

SANDERS, E., 2002. “From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches.” In: Design and the Social Sciences:
Making Connections. Jorge Frascara (editor). London: Taylor & Francis Ltd., pp. 1– 8.

SCHULER D. and A. NAMIOKA (Editors), 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates,

SCRIVENER, S., L. J. BALL, and A. WOODCOCK (Editors), 2000. Collaborative Design: Proceedings of CoDesigning 2000.
London: Springer-Verlag.