Visible Language Visible 53 . 2 53 . 2 Visible Language the journal of visual communication research august 2019 ISSN 0022-2224 august 2019 Published continuously since 1967. Before there was reading there was seeing. Visible Language has been concerned with ideas that help define the unique role and properties of visual communication. A basic premise of the journal has been that created visual form is an autonomous system of expression that must be defined and explored on its own terms. Today more than ever people navigate the world and probe life’s meaning through visual language. This journal is devoted to enhancing people’s experience through the advancement of research and practice of visual communication. Published tri-annually in April, August, and December website: http://visiblelanguagejournal.com send correspondence to: Mike Zender, Editor College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning University of Cincinnati PO Box 210016 Cincinnati, OH 45221-0016 Mike Zender, Editor Dr. Maria dos Santos Lonsdale, Associate Editor- Typography University of Cincinnati, School of Design, Publisher Mike Zender, Publication Manager Merald Wrolstad, Founder Sharon Poggenpohl, Editor Emeritus © Copyright 2019 by University of Cincinnati Visible Language 53 . 2 . Visible Language the journal of visual communication research August 2019 1 Visible Language 53 . 2 . Visible Language Contents Dynamic Visual Identities: from a survey of the Tiago Martins 04 — 35 state-of-the-art João M. Cunha João Bicker to a model of features Penousal Machado and mechanisms Visualizing the terror threat: The impact of Maria dos Santos Lonsdale 36 — 71 communicating David J. Lonsdale Matthew Baxter Advisory Board security information Ryan Graham Aya Kanafani Naomi Baron – The American University, Washington, D.C. to the general public Michael Bierut – Pentagram, New York, NY Anqi Li Charles Bigelow – Type designer using infographics Chunxinzi Peng Matthew Carter – Carter & Cone Type, Cambridge, MA and motion graphics. Keith Crutcher – Cincinnati, OH Mary Dyson – University of Reading, UK Legibility of Jorge Frascara – University of Alberta, Canada Pharmaceutical Ken Friedman – Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia Michael Golec – School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL Pictograms: Towards defining a Pia Pedersen 72 — 99 Judith Gregory – University of California-Irvine, Irvine, CA paradigm Kevin Larson – Microsoft Advanced Reading Technologies Aaron Marcus – Aaron Marcus & Associates, Berkeley, CA Per Mollerup – Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia For Visual Tom Ockerse – Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, RI Sharon Poggenpohl – Estes Park, CO Attention, are there any Jinsook Kim 100 — 111 Michael H Fritsch Michael Renner – The Basel School of Design – Visual Communication Institute, Tendencies Academy of Art and Design, HGK FHNW Stan Ruecker – IIT, Chicago, IL in Form Katie Salen – DePaul University, Chicago, IL Interpretation Peter Storkerson – Champaign, IL Karl van der Waarde – Avans University, Breda, The Netherlands Book Review Mike Zender – University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 2 3 Visible Language 53 . 2 . Legibility of Pharmaceutical Pictograms: Towards defining a paradigm Pia Pedersen The design of medicinal information in leaflets and labels is often criticized Pedersen for not meeting patients’ needs. For that reason, there is an increasing focus on how the use of pictures, such as pictograms, may benefit patients on their medical journey. However, before a pictogram can be comprehended it must be legible, which may be a challenge when pharmaceutical informa- tion has to be conveyed. Within a limited space many visual details need to be included in order to clarify the intended meaning. While we have abundant information about the comprehen- Pictograms: of Pharmaceutical Legibility sion of pictograms, we know very little about the legibility – the ability to visually identify objects – of pictograms. By looking at legibility research into pharmaceutical pictograms from a design perspective, this paper demon strates that legibility is not prioritized either in theory or in practice. In order to proceed with the use and implementation of pictograms in, for example, patient information leaflets and labels, we need to know more about the features that constitute legibility. To create a research founda- tion, this paper draws on knowledge of visibility and legibility from related domains. This forms the basis of a discussion of the need for future research to focus on legibility issues, amongst others by incorporating design knowl- edge into experiments. 72 7 3 Visible Language 53 . 2 . Introduction While some research fails to confirm the benefits of adding pharmaceutical pictograms to labels and PILs (Hwang, Tram, and Knarr Medicines, as well as regulations regarding ways to inform and educate 2005, Wolf et al. 2010, Morrell, Park, and Poon 1990, Chan and Hassali 2014, patients about medicines, have increasingly become mass-produced. For in- Hämeen-Anttila et al. 2004); it is generally agreed that they can improve stance since 1992, the EU has required that printed drug information in the patients’ ability to notice, understand, recall and adhere to information form of leaflets be enclosed with all dispensed medicines (see Waarde 2017). about their medication (see reviews by Del Re et al. 2016, Barros, Alcântara, These leaflets and the pharmaceutical packaging are subject to legislation Mesquita, Santos, et al. 2014, Houts et al. 2006, Katz, Kripalani, and Weiss and guidelines within the EU as well as nationally. Research into pharma- 2006, Choi 2011, Dowse and Ehlers 1998). Pharmaceutical pictograms could ceutical information embraces several disciplines, including pharmacology, thus be a valuable tool for patients and for pharmacists and other healthcare business communication, language science, graphic design and information professionals who have a responsibility for helping patients to take their design. Across these disciplines the research findings indicate that the EU medicine correctly (Kanji, Xu, and Cavaco 2018). rules – despite good intentions – prevent the design and development of Ideally, an effective pictogram should clearly convey its information that fits users’ needs (Waarde 2017, 2008b, 2010, 2008a, Maat intended meaning to all groups of patients across age, literacy, language and Lentz 2010, Askehave and Zethsen 2014, Waarde and Spinillo 2015, and culture (Dowse and Ehlers 1998, 109). While this is difficult to achieve, Dickinson and Gallina 2017). and although it is recommended that pharmaceutical pictograms not be Meanwhile, an increasing number of people are taking Pedersen used without some written or verbal explanation (Houts et al. 2006, Katz, medicines, and we are given more responsibility for our use of medicines. Kripalani, and Weiss 2006, Barros, Alcântara, Mesquita, Santos, et al. 2014), Still people die because of medication errors (WHO 2017). Many patients it is crucial that they are as unambiguous as possible in order to avoid find it difficult to absorb medical information because of their mental state misunderstandings that could lead to serious medication errors. In addition, and the technical terminology (Houts et al. 2006, 174). These problems are before a pictogram can be understood it must be legible (Boersema and exacerbated in some groups, like the older population, which is growing Adams 2017, 306, Wogalter, Conzola, and Smith-Jackson 2002), which, from worldwide (UN 2017). a visual perception perspective, may be challenging for two reasons. First, One way of improving the efficacy and clarity of medical pharmaceutical pictograms are often complex, because they represent Pictograms: of Pharmaceutical Legibility information could be through graphic symbols such as pictograms. The objects or concepts that are complicated or closely related; thus, details current use of the term pictogram often refers to a simple and stylized draw- need to be added to make the different pictograms comprehensible and ing that resembles the idea or concept it is meant to convey (see Tijus et al. distinguishable. To show a breastfeeding woman, for instance, the baby and 2007). Pictograms are used in many different contexts, such as wayfinding, the breast must be displayed. When showing side effects such as headache traffic information and product instructions. When they are employed to and dizziness, a face, and some detailed variations in the form of contextual help patients understand their medicine treatment, they are usually called clues must be shown to further understand and differentiate their meanings pharmaceutical pictograms. Their purpose is to help people see, under- (see Zender and Mejía 2013, Lesch et al. 2013). It is not enough to show a stand, recall and adhere to information about medicines such as instruc- simple filled icon of a woman like we see in the toilet pictogram (see Figure tions, symptoms, precautions, warnings and side effects. A well-researched 1). Second, space is an important aspect of the implementation of pharma- library of pharmaceutical pictograms is the so-called USP (The United States ceutical pictograms on e.g. patient information leaflets and labels (Dowse Pharmacopeia), which was initiated by The United States Pharmacopeia and Ehlers 1998, 114). However, if reduced in size as in Figure 2, visual details Dispensing Information (USP-DI) over 30 years ago. may blend together and reduce legibility. Considering the growing