Visual Tools & Visual Actions: Graphic Design Work

IDT 560: Visual Literacy | Module 3: E3 Activity on “Informational and Statistical Visuals”.

By: Arturo Pelayo.

Instructions:

I. Redesign the form you created for Module 2, now include criteria on Visual Tools as well as Visual Actions (CARP).

II. Use the new form to critique a poorly designed chart, graph, table, diagram, or illustration.

III. Redesign the item you choose to critique.

IV. Write a short paragraph outlining the improvements.

Procedure:

• Creation of an introductory documentation page for future reference and incorporation of Best Practices.

• Creation of a Document Version History Page to detail the changes of the E2 Form and the E3. (Satisfies Instruction I).

• The 3rd page of this document includes the “E2” form.

• The 4th & 5th pages represent the new “E3” form.

• When printed, the document can be easily laminated, as each side of the form would remain on the same sheet of

paper.

• The 4th page will be the CARP side & the 5th page will include the criteria on Visual tools. (Satisfies Instruction II).

• The 6th page includes the “old” illustration evaluated in E2.

• The 7th page includes the redesigned illustration. (Satisfies Instruction III).

• The 8th & 9th pages include an E3 template. (Satisfies Instruction I).

• The 10th page includes a paragraph with discussion of improvements.

Documentation of changes to form (document version history):

Change E2 E3 Reason?

Font type used. Helvetica, size 11. Euphemia UCAS, size 12. The Integration of mild serifs enhances the visual appeal of thedocument while also providing better readability and less eyestrain.

Risk: This is not a standard font of MS Word.Mitigation: Provide a PDF file.

Page Formatting US Letter (landscape). US Legal (landscape). Provides better readability and uniform density of text presented.

Risk: The evaluator may not have legal-sized paper when printing the document.Mitigation: Provide a notice to the user.

Graphics A clock was used as ametaphor instead of anordinary itemization ofvariables

For CARP side there areno changes. For VisualTools, a similar metaphoris used

Keeping consistency in the presentation and adding visual cuesfor variables aids the learner in identifying them.

Chart titles Not present On the top left corner inblack background.

For easy identification, form titles of “visual tools” and “visualactions” where added with appropriate figure/ground relationship.

visualactions

★✩✩✩✩

Lame★★✩✩✩

Disappointing★★★✩✩

So-So★★★★✩

Marginal★★★★★

Unified

1st glance

The material lacks any guidancefor the user to discern what it ishe/she is looking at.

The material devalues the credibilityof the sponsoring agencies.

The material meets theneeds. But does not showquality.

The material is “OK” buthas no “added value”.

The material enhancesthe appeal of the event &sponsors.

purpose

The objective of the documentcannot be discerned visually orthrough writing.

“Farewell Reception” is the mainpurpose of the document, yet it isthe last line written.

Text Headings and visualsallow the user to identify theuse of the material.

Its seamless to understandthe interface, minordetails lost.

Best practices arefollowed and ImageStrategies are respected.

contrast

The choice of colors andgraphics is overpowering, hardto read and disruptive.

Overall there is cohesion betweenthe fonts, graphics and outputmedia used.

Content relationships aredistracting to the purpose ofthe material.

Variations on the designelements are minimal.

The material is appealingto the eye and is “ascrapbook keeper”.

scale

Content is over or under sized,pixilated. Illogical.

Relationship across elements isdistorted.

Graphics and text seem tobelong on the same space.

Minor problems withtext/graphicsrelationships.

The sizes are pleasing tothe eye.

alignment

The spacing of text is inconsistentfrom one page to the next. Nohierarchy.

Text grouping does not matchphysical or invisible margins ofgraphics.

It is easy to discern sectionsfrom one another.

Some elements slightly“off the rule of thirds” .

Has perfect cohesion ofrelationships.

harmony

The material lacks order,structure and cannot haveappeal or value of any kind.

The graphic/text-to-space ratio isnot cohesive. Font variation isdisrupting.

There are some “deadspots” (blank areas makeimbalance).

The product has balance,cohesion and isappealing.

The material has appeal.(Fibonacci harmony).

repetition

The material has absolute lack ofvaried graphics / text framing.

Changes in text/graphic lacksuniformity and prevent learner frommaking connections.

The material is boring as itdoes not provoke interest.

Content neitheroverwhelms nor underpowers the material.

The material has acohesive & sound theme.

content

Material does not providecontent to fulfill purpose.

Content is scattered, hard to find. The content is present butother factors undermine itspresence.

The content may bepolished by replacingwords/graphics.

The material is “VisuallyLiterate”.

proximity

Spacing of graphics and text istight. No emphasis onrelationships.

The figure/ground relationships aremissing. No visual independence.

Content “stands on itsown”, but looses grouping.

Content has cohesionand a level of harmony.

Material has a naturalvisual flow and order.

logic

The material seems to need anInstruction Manual to beread/understood.

The material lacks uniformity; it hasno interface that can be seamlesslyfollowed.

The material has a structureyet time still needs to beinvested to understand it.

The material can be“read” although someHeadings are missing.


verdict

The material has 18 out of 50 possible “stars”, it is almost Disappointing, but pretty well in the Lame category.

visualtools

★✩✩✩✩

Lame★★✩✩✩




Unified

type

The material is extremelyhard to read and lacksany guidance for the userto discern what it is he/sheis looking at.

After a significant loss of time, theuser understands the purpose ofthe provided medium.

The material meets theneeds. But does not showquality and shows noemphasis onrelationships.


The material enhancesthe appeal of the event& sponsors.

shape

The objective of thedocument cannot bediscerned visually orthrough writing. It does notprovoke interest.

There is no cohesion in the designwhatsoever. The relationships,hierarchy and scale areevidently disproportioned. Themessage is lost.

Visuals and text haveminimal appeal andrelationship to oneanother. The design isdistracting and “looksbusy”.

The rule of thirds isimplicit in the design,yet there aredistractions on thecomposition.

Form and function areclear in the design. Thematerial has a cohesive& sound theme.

color

There are too many colorswhich overpower thedocument and make ithard to read anddisruptive.

Color palette does not work inharmony with the document as awhole. It deprives the learnerfrom making connections.

Color relationships aredistracting to the purposeof the material.

There are variations onthe contrast of the useof colors.

The material hasappeal and is legible.

depth

There is an imbalance onthe figure and groundrelationships. Figure hasbeen reversed. Thematerial lacks consistencyin ratios of graphics andtext.

Relationship across figure andground is not cohesive. It isdistorted. There are many “deadspots” (blank areas makeimbalance).

Objects are notappealing and do notground properly ontotheir intended use andhierarchy.

There are aspects ofthe figure/groundrations that are stillconflicting with oneanother. This createsdistracting design.

Figure and groundrelationships aremastered. There isconsistency in designand relationships areintuitive.

space

The spacing of text isinconsistent from onepage to the next. Toomany fonts. Too Heavy.

Text kerning and alignment donot have harmony to graphics.Space is misused andoverpowering.

There are gaps betweengraphics and text,anchoring is notmastered.

Background contrast isminimal and colorpalette is appropriate.

There is consistency onfonts, colors, graphicsand background art.Savvy.

verdict The material has 7 out of 25 possible “stars”, it is Lame.

Original graphic:

*

*

*

**

*

Redesigned graphic:

visualactions

★✩✩✩✩

Lame★★✩✩✩




Unified

1st glance

The material lacks any guidancefor the user to discern what it ishe/she is looking at.

The material devalues the credibilityof the sponsoring agencies.

The material meets theneeds. But does not showquality.


The material enhancesthe appeal of the event &sponsors.

purpose

The objective of the documentcannot be discerned visually orthrough writing.

“Farewell Reception” is the mainpurpose of the document, yet it isthe last line written.

Text Headings and visualsallow the user to identify theuse of the material.

Its seamless to understandthe interface, minordetails lost.

Best practices arefollowed and ImageStrategies are respected.

contrast

The choice of colors andgraphics is overpowering, hardto read and disruptive.

Overall there is cohesion betweenthe fonts, graphics and outputmedia used.

Content relationships aredistracting to the purpose ofthe material.

Variations on the designelements are minimal.

The material is appealingto the eye and is “ascrapbook keeper”.

scale

Content is over or under sized,pixilated. Illogical.

Relationship across elements isdistorted.

Graphics and text seem tobelong on the same space.

Minor problems withtext/graphicsrelationships.

The sizes are pleasing tothe eye.

alignment

The spacing of text is inconsistentfrom one page to the next. Nohierarchy.

Text grouping does not matchphysical or invisible margins ofgraphics.

It is easy to discern sectionsfrom one another.

Some elements slightly“off the rule of thirds” .

Has perfect cohesion ofrelationships.

harmony

The material lacks order,structure and cannot haveappeal or value of any kind.

The graphic/text-to-space ratio isnot cohesive. Font variation isdisrupting.

There are some “deadspots” (blank areas makeimbalance).

The product has balance,cohesion and isappealing.

The material has appeal.(Fibonacci harmony).

repetition

The material has absolute lack ofvaried graphics / text framing.

Changes in text/graphic lacksuniformity and prevent learner frommaking connections.

The material is boring as itdoes not provoke interest.

Content neitheroverwhelms nor underpowers the material.

The material has acohesive & sound theme.

content

Material does not providecontent to fulfill purpose.

Content is scattered, hard to find. The content is present butother factors undermine itspresence.

The content may bepolished by replacingwords/graphics.


proximity

Spacing of graphics and text istight. No emphasis onrelationships.

The figure/ground relationships aremissing. No visual independence.

Content “stands on itsown”, but looses grouping.

Content has cohesionand a level of harmony.

Material has a naturalvisual flow and order.

logic

The material seems to need anInstruction Manual to beread/understood.

The material lacks uniformity; it hasno interface that can be seamlesslyfollowed.

The material has a structureyet time still needs to beinvested to understand it.

The material can be“read” although someHeadings are missing.


verdict

Write a review here:

visualtools

★✩✩✩✩

Lame★★✩✩✩




Unified

type

The material is extremelyhard to read and lacksany guidance for the userto discern what it is he/sheis looking at.

After a significant loss of time, theuser understands the purpose ofthe provided medium.

The material meets theneeds. But does not showquality and shows noemphasis onrelationships.


The material enhancesthe appeal of the event& sponsors.

shape

The objective of thedocument cannot bediscerned visually orthrough writing. It does notprovoke interest.

There is no cohesion in the designwhatsoever. The relationships,hierarchy and scale areevidently disproportioned. Themessage is lost.

Visuals and text haveminimal appeal andrelationship to oneanother. The design isdistracting and “looksbusy”.

The rule of thirds isimplicit in the design,yet there aredistractions on thecomposition.

Form and function areclear in the design. Thematerial has a cohesive& sound theme.

color

There are too many colorswhich overpower thedocument and make ithard to read anddisruptive.

Color palette does not work inharmony with the document as awhole. It deprives the learnerfrom making connections.

Color relationships aredistracting to the purposeof the material.

There are variations onthe contrast of the useof colors.

The material hasappeal and is legible.

depth

There is an imbalance onthe figure and groundrelationships. Figure hasbeen reversed. Thematerial lacks consistencyin ratios of graphics andtext.

Relationship across figure andground is not cohesive. It isdistorted. There are many “deadspots” (blank areas makeimbalance).

Objects are notappealing and do notground properly ontotheir intended use andhierarchy.

There are aspects ofthe figure/groundrations that are stillconflicting with oneanother. This createsdistracting design.

Figure and groundrelationships aremastered. There isconsistency in designand relationships areintuitive.

space

The spacing of text isinconsistent from onepage to the next. Toomany fonts. Too Heavy.

Text kerning and alignment donot have harmony to graphics.Space is misused andoverpowering.

There are gaps betweengraphics and text,anchoring is notmastered.

Background contrast isminimal and colorpalette is appropriate.

There is consistency onfonts, colors, graphicsand background art.Savvy.

verdict

Write a review here:

Discussion of Improvements:

One of the primary aspects that caught my attention on the original graphic was the misuse of repetitionof an outdated graphic (the world map) that was also too small as an original image that was imported tothe document in the first place.

The use of the original purple globe map tried to emphasize the “internationality” aspect of the event,however it was too empowering and off scale in relation to the text and other bodies in the document. Itbroke all margins and was visually too heavy to be at the top of the document. Such distraction causedthe text to seem out of place and the font type used with such strong serifs was inappropriate as it seemedthat the text was “in a hurry”.

The front cover did not have a clear message of the event. The new design is bold and objective. Itemploys a large graphic with sufficient alpha transparency to make it recede on to the background andanchor the weight of a borderless design. The sponsoring agencies’ logos where also removed as theintegration of so many graphics receded from chunking into high density stacking.

The new design looks and feels 30 years younger. It is bold, innovative and enhances the image of theagencies involved.