<<

Design Studying the Effects of Designed Objects

Annina Schneller i abstract Many of the ways in which artifacts appear to or actually do affect us—as el- egant, dynamic, comfortable, authentic—are based on the fact that they are designed objects. Design is an effect-oriented process that resorts to design rules linking formal aspects of designed artifacts to specific design effects. Design rhetoric tries to capture these links between design techniques and resulting effects. This article presents design-rhetorical methods of identifying design rules of intersubjective validity. The new approach, developed at Bern University of the Arts, combines rhetorical design analysis with practice- oriented design research, based on the creation and empirical testing of de- variants in accordance with effect hypotheses.

keywords commercial graphics, design artifacts, design effects, design rhetoric, effect- oriented design, design, practice-based design research, visual rhetoric o

Introduction

Rhetoric is commonly understood as the art of persuasion or effect- oriented . Since the 1960s, there have been various attempts to extend rhetoric from speech to visual communication and to design in general. Design rhetoric addresses the effects of ar- tifacts and especially the techniques by which they can be generated and controlled in the design process. The central problems of this approach are the identification of effects and the validation of rules linking design aspects to specific effects. The goal of this article is to demonstrate how these problems can be dealt with by means of a tri- angulation of analysis, expert judgments, practice-based research, and laboratory experiments. The suggestions made are based on the results and methods developed over the course of two Bern University of the Arts research projects on visual rhetoric in commercial graphics and public-transport information design. While advertising and mass com- munication theory as well as the psychology and sociology of media

Nature and Culture 10(3), Winter 2015: 333–356 © Berghahn Books doi:10.3167/nc.2015.100305 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

are generally more interested in the macrostructural and postcommu- nicative effects of their objects of investigation (that is, how they affect actions, purchase decisions, of life, social structures, or mental equilibrium of users and receivers), the design-theoretical approach presented here is concerned with the micro-structural impact levels: the immediately detectable effects resulting from the formal composi- tion of designed objects, effects that are grounded in the appearance, and sometimes even in the intrinsic properties of things (that is, what kind of primary impression they make on the viewer). In the fi rst two sections, a short introduction to design rhetoric is provided—partic- ularly for readers not yet familiar with the topic—and the main focus and hypotheses of the approach are presented. In the remaining sec- tions, the methods of ascribing effects to design artifacts applied in the two projects are outlined and the arising diffi culties and possible ways of overcoming these diffi culties are discussed.

Visual and Design Rhetoric

Rhetoric as the art of persuasion or effect-oriented communication has been specifi cally studied from a visual point of view since the 1960s (Schneller 2010a; Joost and Scheuermann 2006, 2008). Bonsiepe (1965) was the fi rst one to use the term “rhetoric” in the context of vi- sual communication. While rhetoric traditionally analyzed and taught the theory and practice of successful speech, the interest now turned to the “rhetorical” means used in visual forms of communication such as posters, book covers, magazine ads, or logotypes in order to catch attention, to surprise or to emotionally affect viewers. At the center of the fi rst attempts to treat visual material in terms of rhetoric was the application of rhetorical fi gures to the visual. Rhetorical such as metaphor, hyperbole, metonymy, or ellipsis were used to describe and systematize visual techniques in advertising and other forms of commercial graphics (Ibid.; Ehses 1984, 1986, 1995). In 1985, Buchanan radicalized the idea of a rhetoric of visual ob- jects by completely leaving out the verbal aspects that had previously played a substantial role in sketching the rhetoric of visual communi- cation. His of “design argument” puts forward the idea that even industrial design objects such as lamps, bookshelves, or coffee machines incorporate quasi-rhetorical modes of infl uence. According to Buchanan, the impact on viewers and users is exerted by the tech- nological (logos), characteristic (ethos), or emotional (pathos ) features

334 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ of designed objects. Doubts may be raised about the appropriateness of his application of the term “argument” to design artifacts (Schneller 2010a; Blair 2004), but his concept underlines an important insight, namely that not just the represented content, but also the formal as- pects of design are capable of infl uencing people and can be sys- tematically put to the purpose. The rhetoric of design reaches beyond the semantic levels of persuasion. In the past, visual rhetoric mostly focused on the representational content of images and the possibility of transferring rhetorical fi gures from text and speech to the visual fi eld. But persuasive means and strategies can be described not only on the level of content (what you say), but also on the level of structure or form (how you say it). In the rhetoric of objects, formal aspects are of utmost importance, whereas semantic features become less import- ant—and are clearly less explicit than in speech. Although it has be- come popular to talk of “product ” or “product ” in industrial design (Krippendorff and Butter 1984; Vihma 1995; Steffen 1997; Krippendorff 2006), the fundamental in explicitness must be kept in mind. While there is an explicit content to any normal uttered , the “content” of an armchair or lemon squeezer is of a rather implicit nature. What is more, spoken and written usually have a linear and temporal structure, which is why rhetorical effects can be created by contrasting, stressing, or repeating linguis- tic elements over time. The “reading” process of designed objects is guided to a lesser extent than that of a printed text. Designed things mostly generate effects of contrast, stress, or repetition within the spa- tial arrangement of a formal whole present at one time; graphic de- sign, however, is a special case, since it uses a combination of verbal text, image, and visual form where linear, temporal, and composi- tional aspects of effects are interwoven. And for time-based visual me- dia such as fi lm and video, the temporal effect dimension is actually as eminent as in speech and text. In any event, effects of content and form can never be strictly separated. The font, size, color, and place- ment of a written text (which in fact is a design object, too, as is the speed, loudness, and timbre of a spoken text) always have an impact on their overall perception. Design rhetoric could be defi ned as the attempt to explain—in terms of the concepts and strategies known from rhetorical theory and practice—how and by which formal means designed things in- fl uence us. Although visual effects are probably the most important, a comprehensive understanding of design rhetoric will certainly have to consider other sensory impact levels, that is, the haptic, acoustic,

335 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

and olfactory effects of designed things; nevertheless, the two research projects presented in this paper focus mainly on the visual rhetoric of designed objects.

Design as Rhetoric: Focus and Hypotheses

The design-rhetorical approach adopted in the Bern University of the Arts research projects can be characterized by fi ve main hypotheses. First, it advocates the idea that effects of design artifacts can be ana- lyzed by conceiving of design as a rhetorical process. To call a process “rhetorical” means that a piece of speech, or an artifact, is in general produced with a view to evoking certain reactions in an audience and that this is achieved by following specifi c rules or strategies that help bring about the intended effect. This does not mean that every design effect must be created consciously. Rather, effect orientation and (purposeful or tacit) rule application is supposed to be part of the basic ability of the designer as practitioner (Schneller 2010a). Just like speech, designed artifacts can be seen as attempts to catch the atten- tion and goodwill of a public, to entertain, amuse, shock, or surprise, to create feelings, to infl uence opinions, values, or actions. However, design rules deal with the relation between the compositional struc- ture and the immediate impulses presented in the design object. This way, they differ from effect studies in rhetoric and related fi elds such as advertising and consumer psychology where the primary focus is on conative effects (impact on volition, intentions, behavior, and ac- tions) as well as long term effects such as attitude change, purchase behavior, memorization, or psychodynamic processes (Kazmi and Ba- tra 2008; Giles 2003). Of course, some of the immediately perceptible effects of design objects can play a role in the determination of further conative and post-communicative effects. Although not suffi cient for producing such secondary effects, design effects can provide “hints” pointing in their direction. A comfortable design might thus make a user or viewer feel comfortable and in doing so infl uence her pur- chasing decision, while a calm design might be suitable to provoke calming effects and consequently make viewers drowsy. The second general hypothesis asserts that there is no such thing as effect-free or non-rhetorical design (Kinross 1985; Atzmon 2010; Schneller 2010b; Schneller/Scheuermann 2012). Every design affects or stimulates people, sometimes heavily, sometimes in subtle or per- haps almost unremarkable ways. Every act of shaping a design object

336 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ involves a choice of shape, color, size, and proportion, and this choice will create differences in the appearance and impact of the object. Third, the rhetorical dimensions logos, ethos, and pathos can be used to defi ne three categories of visual effects. Similar to speech, de- sign artifacts infl uence us not only on a rational (or functional) basis (logos), but also embody a character or act on our values (ethos) and stimulate our emotions (pathos).1 Fourth, the relation between specifi c formal means and their visual (haptic and other) effects can be described in terms of design rules. Design effects are bound to laws of perception, viewing patterns, de- sign traditions, movements, and fashions that shape and restrict the possibilities of the designer. An example for a design rule runs as fol- lows: if you want to create a calm effect, use sans serif or roman type, low contrast, matte surfaces, open and symmetrical arrangements, and accentuate the horizontal. These rules can be actively or passively followed by designers in order to produce the effects intended with a designed object. It might seem that in advertising, the strategy is to break the conventions of seeing in order to surprise consumers rather than to simply follow design rules. Nevertheless, the sheer possibility of deviation reinforces the idea that there are rules at work. Many ads could perhaps be attributed to the use of second-order rules such as: if you want to catch attention or surprise, then break other rules such as “Be clear” or “Show things as they are.” The specifi c use of formal and semantic deviations is indeed a typical rhetorical phenomenon. Vi- sual rhetorical fi gures and tropes such as hyperboles, metaphors and ellipses are defi ned by specifi c deviations from the norm, for example, addition, repetition, omission, or transformation (Ehses 1986). Fifth, there is an overall rhetorical principle that guides the range of possible deviations, called the decorum or aptum. It controls the adequacy of effects and measures rule application (or breach) relative to the context of a design artifact.

Two Research Projects

The intersections of design and rhetoric were the subject of two re- search projects in the Communication Design Research Area at Bern University of the Arts. The fi rst project, Visual Rhetoric in Commercial Graphics (2007–2009), funded by the Swiss National Foun- dation (SNSF), studied the visual effects of graphic design in advertis- ing and other commercial fi elds of visual communication (Schneller

337 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

2009). It involved an exploration of the rhetorical view that graphic design and its modes of effect can be described by rules, that is, that for nearly any visual effect a set of stylistic means can be determined through which the intended effect can be created with some proba- bility of success. One main result was a list of design effects and rules most commonly used in commercial graphics, such as magazine ads, posters, book and CD covers, business cards, and package designs. Each rule combines a design effect with a set of formal means (typogra- phy, form, color, technique, proportion, material, etc.) that help achieve the intended effect. The design rules were explored and determined by a rhetorical design analysis of existing graphic artifacts. After theo- retical analysis, a practice-based research method was developed and applied. The validity of the design rules was tested by fi rst creating graphic design variants according to specifi c design rules and by then examining the actual effects of the designed objects on observers. The second SNSF-funded research project, Visual Rhetoric 2: Rules and Scope in Public Transport-Information Design (2010–2011), built on the fi rst project and examined, in cooperation with Swiss Federal Railways, the rhetoric of an arguably effect-free fi eld of visual communication: information design (for a detailed project presenta- tion, see Schneller 2010b; Schneller and Scheuermann 2012). While the effect orientation of commercial graphics is quite obvious, pieces of information design, such as signposts or timetables, do not seem to be created with a view to infl uencing people; they merely inform us about directions or train departures and seem to purely convey information, without aiming at persuasion. Nevertheless, the project made it clear that even informing people has to be understood as an effect that information designers can—and should—aim at by using appropriate formal means and, in addition, that information design ideally does more than just inform people. It was shown that pub- lic transport information design typically involves a clear, reserved, simple, and clean appearance (logos), but that it should also look at- tractive and procure a sense of security and comfort to the traveler (ethos and pathos). Just like in the previous project, the fi rst step was a rhetorical analysis of information-design artifacts and design man- uals that resulted in a collection of design rules (intended effects and formal means to achieve them). The second step was to create and empirically test a set of design variants. The specifi c methods of anal- ysis, effect-oriented creation, and empirical testing of design artifacts applied in the two research projects will be presented and scrutinized in the following sections.

338 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ

Rhetorical Design Analysis

Rhetorical design analysis is a method developed at Bern University of the Arts and has been applied and refi ned in the two research projects on visual rhetoric. It is based on the idea that every design artifact is created with an intention to create specifi c visual (haptic, olfactory, and other) effects, and that this can be achieved by choosing appropri- ate formal or stylistic means. The analysis proceeds through six steps: (1) formal analysis that is a description of the formal/stylistic elements of the design object,2 plus collection of information about its context; (2) effect analysis that is a determination of the effects produced by the design object; (3) elaboration of the design rules at work (correla- tion of effect and formal means); (4) reconstruction3 of the intended effects or determining them by interviewing the responsible designer; (5) identifi cation of contra-intentional factors; (6) application of the concept of decorum (adequacy) and establishing a possible scope for action in the creation of designs. Steps 1 through 3 involve effect ascription and the defi nition of design rules, both raising their own methodological problems (see the following two sections). The results of the rhetorical design analysis can be used to evaluate existing designs (“Does the design artifact have the intended effects? Are there any unwanted or inappropriate side- effects? Which formal/stylistic features are responsible for these ef- fects?”) and to create better, more effective or more adequate new de- signs (“Which other means would be more appropriate for the intended effects?”). In the two research projects, the method of rhetorical design analysis itself was submitted for further testing by practice-based de- sign. The results, especially the postulated design rules, were treated as effect hypotheses whose validity and applicability to design prac- tice were further explored (see the section on practice-based design research).

How to Determine the Effects of Designed Objects?

A major diffi culty of rhetorical-design analysis is the determination of the actual effects of design artifacts. What defi nes the effects of a poster, signpost, book cover, or business card? How can the effects of designed objects be described and categorized? Can the effects found in particular objects be generalized? Are there any experts for defi ning design effects? The determination of effects is crucial for the formula-

339 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

tion of design rules and, fundamentally, for a rhetorical understanding of design. There is no straightforward method, given that the visual effects of design objects are manifold and highly context-sensitive.4 Materially, the visual impression of an object varies according to per- spective, light conditions, or position. Even more obvious are the sub- jective factors causing an indeterminacy of effect. How a designed object affects a viewer depends on her taste, interests, and values, on her actual disposition and needs as well as on her previous knowledge and experience. Furthermore, the socio-cultural and historical con- text affects people’s perception and interpretation of such elements as color, textures, and motifs. Visual trends, zeitgeist and technological developments (for example, printing press, photocopy, desktop pub- lishing) lead to changes in visual perception and the impacts design artifacts can have. While some of the design effects are fairly constant over time and cultures, most are informed by fashion and other so- cio-cultural infl uences and will, sooner or later, be modifi ed. What used to provoke or even shock people (for example, because it ap- peared pornographic or brutal) can be attenuated by habituation or a change in moral standards. Images that used to convey severity or heroism might appear awkward or exaggerated now, and what looks modern today is likely to assume an old-fashioned or nostalgic touch in the near future. The more enduring effects are presumably based in the human cognitive system and can perhaps be explained with the physiology and psychology of perception or through evolutionary bi- ology. Darkness and the color black may always and everywhere have had a frightening effect on human beings. This unsettling effect of dark designs could perhaps be traced back to the fact that human beings are not able to orientate in darkness, which—from an evolutionary perspective—is a disadvantage. That neon colors can be used as an eye catcher or in order to warn people could be explained by the fact that the human visual apparatus is particularly sensitive to them and because we were fi rst confronted with their warning function in conjunction with poisonous animals and plants. The calming effect of a design in panorama format possibly originates in the imitation of an open landscape in which, according to Savanna Theory (Lidwell et al. 2003), human beings feel safe, calm, and comfortable, since here possible dangers can easily be surveyed. The question of why human observers are affected in one way or another by certain visual features is not the object of visual or design rhetoric. For the observer—as well as for the designer as practitioner—it is important to know which stylistic means are required in order to create specifi c effects, but not

340 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ to provide explanations for the underlying modes of perception. De- sign rhetoric is interested in the relation between a design effect and the specifi c design features related to it—regardless of whether the means-effect relation is universal or context-sensitive. In the section on pinning down design rules, more will be said about the relation be- tween formal means and effect, which can be paired in a design rule. First, however, the problem of effect ascription must be tackled: How can the aforementioned restrictions be provided for? While not every manifest effect may be transferable to other cultures or times, not every effect is necessarily perceived consciously, and not every beholder will react in exactly the same way, there still must be a least common denominator for design to function at all. Designers must be able to rely on certain visual mechanisms in order to engage in a rhe- torical, effect-oriented process—and they usually do so successfully. It has been claimed that—at least for a here and now, that is, a limited time and socio-cultural area—a set of more or less clear-cut visual ef- fects can be determined. Despite the limitations in the range of infl u- ence and precision of visual effects, it must thus somehow be possible to take hold of them. In the two Bern University of the Arts research projects, the solution consisted in a combination of qualitative meth- ods and a practice-based approach (see the fi nal section for details). They aimed at working out the typical, but also the controversial vi- sual effects generated in commercial graphics and public-transport in- formation design. The fi rst step consisted in collecting and rhetorically analyzing a broad range of visual material from these areas. The col- lection of commercial graphics comprised current and mainly local material (a restriction to the here and now): magazine ads and post- ers, book and CD covers, package designs—original, photographed, or taken from design books. Public information design was photo- graphed at several Swiss railway stations and categorized according to location (entrance area, passageways/shopping area, platforms) and type of information carrier (poster, screen, building, , etc.). In the fi rst project, a triangulation of researchers was used to elim- inate individual bias in effect ascription; every design artifact was an- alyzed independently by several members of the project team. Only if a visual effect was confi rmed by all team members, was it ascribed to the design object. What is more, it seemed important for the ascrip- tion of visual effects to graphic-design artifacts also to turn to practi- cal expertise in the visual fi eld. The research team therefore included graphic designers, i.e. people applying visual rhetoric in their daily work and therefore qualifying as practical experts in the production of

341 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

visual effects. When we started to analyze commercial graphics ma- terial, we noticed that many graphic-design artifacts did not have any clear-cut visual effects; indeed, some even showed confl icting effects. Does the design appear elegant or rather serious, light-hearted or mys- terious, robust or dynamic? The triangulation resulted in an exclusion of design artifacts without clearly manifest visual effects. In fact, this concerned the majority of the collected commercial graphic-design artifacts. For the attribution of design rules (as described in the follow- ing section), only designs with clear and distinct visual effects were used. Although we had avoided the “pitfalls of subjectivity” by means of researcher triangulation and the resulting fi ltering and were able to present and to analyze a set of designed objects with uncontested visual effects, the chosen method was not able to cover a wide range of commercial-graphics artifacts. That is why for the second project we searched for a method that could account for effect deviations (but also for similarities) instead of trying to hide or to eliminate the effect bias caused by individual perception and other contextual factors. The idea was to treat the previously disturbing aspects of context sensitiv- ity as part of the rhetorical process and to make the effect bias visible. Now, visual effects were not particularized or dichotomized, but put in relation to similar effects on a kind of “speedometer scale” between two extremes (see Figure 1).

ng ive s g teni u a hin re ing obtr th rous olt e j ing ng t e-catc a ey d exci ng afe ati mul s uns sti uou ng eali conspic app

le e visib comfortabl

visible neutral safe neutral comfortable neutral

simple well calming

re sa re serv fe laxi ed ng disc observ vacu reet e ous i g d nconspi u bla arded nd invis sur b o cu r v i ible o e n us y g e d

appropriate arguable inappropriate Figure 1 Ⅲ “Speedometer scales” for the evaluation and representa- tion of individually perceived effects and their adequacy in specifi c public-transport information design contexts. Shown are three catego- ries of effect (visible, safe, comfortable) and their evaluation by three viewers (the dots) in the setting as depicted in the picture.

342 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ

Both the individual impressions generated by a design artifact and convergences in effect perception are mirrored in the separate or cu- mulated dots on the scales. From a design-rhetorical point of view, the character and strength of the generated effect depend on the decorum, that is, whether the design seems appropriate to the beholder in a given context. Now, the question for the researchers was not just that of “How does this design artifact look to you and affect you?” but also “Does the effect seem appropriate to you in this context?” The context could be the type of artifact, its content, placement, or target public. While, for an advertisement, it might be perfectly adequate to use a fl ashy design, this might appear inappropriate for a train-departure timetable. On the scales, the felt adequacy or inadequacy of an effect was expressed by the color of the dots. By overlapping a multitude of effect rankings by different people and in different public-trans- port information settings, a tentative extrapolation became possible regarding the “objective” adequacy of an effect in public-transport information design (see Figure 2). The new method was not only able to measure the individual ef- fects of the designed object, but also their adequacy. Moreover, in the rhetorical aspect of adequacy, a fundamental difference in the impact of natural objects and artifacts was revealed: it would not make sense to call the effect of a natural object, such as a waterfall, stone, or tree, inappropriate or appropriate (as long as it is untouched by human hands), since natural things are not the result of a rhetorical process. Just like designed objects, they can affect us, but not in the same way,

e ing v n te s ng trusi hing rea u i tc h lt ob t jo gero e-ca n ey da g exciting in at mul unsafe sti uous nspic ealing co app

le rtable visib comfo visible neutral safe neutral comfortable neutral

simpl well e calming

res safe rela erved xi ng discreet obs vac er ved uou s in guarded b c onspic land in surveye boring vi sible uo us d

appropriate arguable inappropriate Figure 2 Ⅲ Extrapolations of effect adequacy in public-transport infor- mation design.

343 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

because these effects are not intended and therefore neither fi t nor un- fi t for any purpose. Design rhetoric might thus also turn out to be use- ful for explaining the blurred boundaries between the natural and the designed world, since many plants, fruits, animals, and landscapes are no longer entirely natural. They have passed through manifold manip- ulations by cultivators, breeders, or engineers, “designers of nature” in a broad sense. Today, an apple sold in a supermarket tends to look exquisitely fresh, crisp, and shiny, miles away from the appearance of a (more or less) naturally grown apple. There is a lot of work and rhetorical intention behind such a perfect look. Another problem of effect ascription occurred especially in the second project. The rather low impact level found in information design made it diffi cult to discern between different types of effects and raised the question of whether the ascribed attributes were visual effects or just “normal” properties of the information-design artifact. This diffi culty pointed to a general linguistic problem in the ascrip- tion of visual effects. The determination of non-verbal effects involved verbally naming or labeling the rather complex interaction between object and observer and unearthed a particular characteristic in the ordinary language description of visual effects of designed objects. Some words for visual effects coincide with the terms for the intrinsic properties of design artifacts (for example, a clear or elegant design), others name abilities to trigger reactions in the observer (for example, a nervous or sad design), or even directly label such reactions (for example, a surprising or scary design). A way to differentiate between visual effects and intrinsic properties of objects might consist of asking whether an object could appear in some way without actually being so. Certainly, a cardboard column painted to look like marble could be ascribed the visual effect “heavy” while in fact being light. Besides such conceptual clarifi cations, a distinction between two broad levels of impact suggested itself: on the one hand, there are effect properties that are traceable to the formal or semantic features found in the de- signed objects (for example, serious, elegant, cute, dynamic). On the other hand, there are effects indirectly resulting from an interplay of several effects or the combination (or breach) of certain design rules (for example, informative, comprehensible, surprising, irritating, or de- luding). Many effects can be achieved both directly and indirectly (for example, funny, attractive, comfortable, safe). Finally, in order to get an overview of the manifold visual effects, we built clusters of effect descriptions with similar meanings.

344 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ

Besides the triangulation of researchers, a triangulation of sources was used in order to fi nd the most important visual effects in commer- cial graphics and public-transport information design. The fi rst sources were the design artifacts themselves, as described above. In addition to the analysis of visual material, we asked design experts by means of guideline interviews about goals and intended effects in the two fi elds and our effect assumptions were thus confronted with the prac- tical experience of established graphic designers and information-de- sign experts. In the second project, design manuals describing the intended effects and rules of public-transport information design were available as a third type of source. In both projects, the effect analysis resulted in a list of more than twenty effects relevant for the investigated fi elds. The visual effects playing an important role in commercial graphics are: calm, cheap, comfortable, cool, cute, dynamic, elegant, erotic, sumptuous, heroic, light, modern, mysterious, nostalgic, plain, repulsive, robust, roman- tic, sad, scary, serious, tender, vivid, and young. In public-transport information design, the relevant effects are the following (some being of a more general nature and only indirectly attainable): attractive, authentic, calm, clean, clear, comfortable, comprehensible, concise, light, identity-creating, dynamic, friendly, high-quality, modern, natu- ral, recognizable, redundant, reliable, reserved, safe, spacious, unam- biguous, and visible. Figure 3 visualizes the relation between the assumed relevance (or controversial status) of the visual effects fi guring in public-trans- port information design and their impact level (logos, ethos, pathos). The diagram shows that the important effects were of a mostly func- tional/rational nature (logos-based), whereas the controversially dis- cussed effects were largely emotional (pathos-based). It also illustrates the fact that some effects involved more than one rhetorical impact dimension. The lists of effects, together with the design artifacts to which they were ascribed, served as a basis for the identifi cation of design rules. How exactly design rules can be pinned down, will be described in the next section.

Pinning Down Design Rules

The rhetorical design analysis involved another methodological chal- lenge related to the determination of design effects: the identifi cation

345 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

pathos

dynamic

comfortable

light

calm

attractive

spacious

identity-creating safe friendly clear

visible reserved reliable

comprehensible clean authentic

unambiguous high-quality

recognizable modern

redundant

ethos

logos essential desirable controversial Figure 3 Ⅲ Relevant (or disputed) effects of public-transport information- design artifacts relative to their level of impact (logos, ethos, pathos).

of design rules. They link a design effect to a set of stylistic/formal means that help generate this effect and specify the strategies a de- signer can use to create a certain effect. Once an effect has been es- tablished for a given piece of design, the next task is to trace this effect back to its source: the formal features responsible for it. However, it proves to be anything but simple to attribute visual effects to specifi c stylistic features. One problem is that there is no unequivocal correlation between visual elements and optical effects. Another one is that the effects of visual features cannot be completely generalized, since every formal element is embedded in a formal, stylistic, and illustrative whole. The color black, for example, can be used to generate a range of rather different visual effects. Wafts of mist

346 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ set against a dark background can be used to evoke mystery, while the addition of a coffi n or a cross will create a more morbid or eerie effect. Also, black is not only used to frighten, but can, combined with gold or red and curved shapes, be used for elegant and sumptuous designs or, together with simple forms and a limited color palette, for classical or plain looks. Stylistic elements and motifs never stand alone in creating visual effects, but generate them in mutual interplay and interaction with fur- ther context factors. Nevertheless, there seem to be—and indeed need to be for graphic design and visual rhetoric to actually work—general means-effect relationships that can be stated in design rules. For el- egance, for instance, such a rule might be something like this: if you want to create an elegant design effect, use black, grey, or red color, capitals, symmetry, and gloss, etc. (see Figure 4). After all, black will hardly ever be used for light, fresh, cheery, or cute designs. Triangulation of sources and researchers was once again resorted to when it came to formulating design rules. First, the visual artifacts of commercial graphics and information design with specifi c visual effects served as source materials for the formulation of rules. For each manifest visual effect, the members of the research team inde- pendently tried to identify the relevant formal elements. As a next step, experienced graphic and information designers, along with people re- sponsible for the implementation of public-transport information de- sign, were asked in guideline interviews about their design strategies and the design rules operative in their fi elds. Finally, as a third source, design manuals were scanned for design rules. Figures 4 and 5 present examples of design rules identifi ed in the rhetorical design analysis of commercial graphic- and information- design artifacts. In order to assure the validity of the postulated design rules, they were treated at this stage as effect hypotheses that had to be further tested and applied in practice. That is why the second part of the study consisted in practice-based design research, or research through design. The adopted method and approach are outlined in the following section.

Practice-based Design Research

Instead of just analyzing the effects of design objects, the two research projects also attempted to generate and test visual effects in practice by creating specifi c design artifacts. The putative rules of effect de-

347 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

Elegant

Typography handwriting, curved fonts, capitals, thin/light face-type, vertical lettering, spaced type, italics

Style/technique engraving, mirror effects, gloss/semi-gloss, sunset light, low-resolution and black and white photography

Materials shiny or matt-finished metals and gemstones, high paper density, paper imitating precious fabrics (satin, velvet, silk)

Shape curves, slim and long forms/lines, simple, geometrical forms

Colour dark colours, grey, red, white, off-white, metal, limited palette

Proportion stretches of white space/free space, white on black or black on white, dark background, large proportion of black, symmetry (can be slightly broken)

Motive status , precious fabrics, evening dress, long-legged people, dark curls, shiny hair, etc.

Figure 4 Ⅲ Example for design rules operative in commercial graphics, specifying the formal and stylistic means that can be used for creating elegant designs.

termined by rhetorical design analysis were subjected to “research through design”, with a view to answering questions such as: Can visual effects be intentionally generated by applying design rules? Which contexts enforce or distort the intended effects? The specifi c practice-based design-research method was devel- oped at Bern University of the Arts (Mareis 2011), using central aspects from Frayling (1993), Overbeeke (2006), and Findeli et al. (2008). Step 1 consisted of the creation of effect-oriented design artifacts accord- ing to the postulated design rules; step 2 was an empirical testing of the real effects of the design artifacts in order to validate or falsify the hypotheses. Both steps raised practical and methodological issues. In step 1, budget limitations made it impractical to create design objects for every single design rule, or to create many objects with the same intended effect. Nor was it possible to design examples of all types of commercial graphics and public-transport information-design ar- tifacts. So, which types of design artifacts to choose? Magazine ads, business cards, or CD covers? Timetable posters or screens? Each type

348 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ

Visible

Contrast optimise contrast values (e.g. between background and type)

Placement place information at right height and location, make it big enough (reading distance divided by 200 = font size)

Barrier-free good contrast values, sufficient font size, ample line and type spacing, design wording in upper and lower case letters, no red lettering, no tickers, no serif (standards for typeface. Bold characters, clear fonts such as Frutiger, Helvetica (for LED visually impaired) display Buser, for screen Meta Bold). Prevent light reflection. Placement at eye level (min. 1.60 m)

Pictograms use pictograms instead of text

Abstraction abstract rather than true to scale imagery (e.g. line maps: all lines are arranged according to an invisible 45 degree grid, similar lines are aligned)

Relation tailor information quantity to period of exposure

Clearness choose clearest way of depicting things (e.g. 1' instead of 1 min.)

Accentuation accentuate extraordinary information (e.g. by different, flashier colour)

Light provide for different light and weather conditions, use light guidance (e.g. for marking central areas, escalators, lifts)

Structure avoid labyrinthine architectural structures

Figure 5 Ⅲ Example for design rules obtained in public-transport in- formation design, specifying the formal means that help increase the visibility of information-design artifacts.

of artifact comes with its own design contexts and traditions. More- over, it seems generally impossible to create single effects or to use single formal means within one design object, since every artifact em- bodies a range of formal means and resulting visual effects. We there- fore had to make a reasonable choice of design objects that would be suitable for the incorporation of design rules, but still manageable in the design process and appropriate for the empirical survey in step 2. In the fi rst project, we decided to create fi ctitious but verisimi- lar examples from fi ve typical fi elds of commercial graphics (busi- ness cards, wine labels, book covers, magazine ads, and posters). In

349 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

the second project, three already existing information-design objects served as starting points for experimental redesigns (train departure poster, train formation poster, and a warning sign “Step back from the safety line”). In both projects, a set of three variants with different intended effects was created for each type of artifact (see Figures 6–8 and 9–11).5 The limitation and selection of artifact types, effect intentions and rules involved questions of representativeness and generalizability. Would the effects of a limited range of test objects be generalizable and applicable to other design artifacts or situations in the same fi eld or even to other visual fi elds? It would seem acceptable to suggest that the fi ctitious design artifacts could at least serve as exemplifi cations of a specifi c means-effect relation postulated in a design rule. Therefore, the confi rmation of an effect achieved by the use of certain formal features in the artifact would at least be one case where the rule is applicable. Another important consideration in this context was the question of transferability. How could the comparability of the created design vari- ants be ensured? If their formal differences were too big, there could be no certainty regarding the formal means responsible for the effects. If the variants were too similar, this might have resulted in hardly perceiv- able effect differences (indeed, particularly for non-designers, it proved to be diffi cult to name or even notice subtle effect deviations). Espe-

Figures 6–8 Ⅲ Three business-card design variants created with different effect intentions. 6: serious, reliable; 7: young, stylish; 8: cheap, discount. Original size: 55 x 85 mm.

350 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ

12.12.2010-10.12.2011 Formation der Züge Solothurn Formation des trains Gleis 1 Formazione dei treni Voie 1 Formation of the trains Binario 1 Track 1

1. 2.

1. Klasse 2. Klasse Restaurant Veloselbstverlad Wireless Access Stromanschluss Familienabteil möglich

ABFAHRT DESTINATION TAGE GLEIS 3 SEKTOR A B C D Montag Dienstag Mittwoch Donnerstag Freitag Samstag Sonn- und Feiertage 05:33 Konstanz IR

06:01 St. Gallen ICN

06:32 Konstanz IR

07:02 St. Gallen ICN

07:33 Konstanz IR

07:59 Genève ICN

08:33 Konstanz IR

09:01 St. Gallen ICN

09:33 Konstanz IR

10:01 Genève ICN

10:33 Biel/Bienne IR

11:01 St. Gallen ICN Gestaltung: Simon Küffer | Hochschule der Künste Bern der Künste | Hochschule Simon Küffer Gestaltung:

11:33 Konstanz IR Bern der Künste | Hochschule Freitag Montag Samstag Dienstag Mittwoch Feiertage Sonn- und Donnerstag Gestaltung: Simon Küffer Gestaltung:

Figures 9–11 Ⅲ Three train-formation poster design variants created with different effect intentions. 9: clear, objective, reliable; 10: young, dynamic; 11: light, spacious. Original size: 420 x 594 mm (A2). cially in the second project, we tended toward stronger deviations and to highly experimental and partly somewhat unrealistic design variants in order to get clearly discernible effects. This experimental approach was also chosen to fi nd out about the different levels of impact (logos, ethos, and pathos) and to establish scopes for action in and possible constraints on design by running counter and thereby revealing peo- ple’s expectations toward specifi c design objects and fi elds. In turn, it was important to precisely capture and describe the reactions of viewers to the created design artifacts. The impact study in step 2 was carried out by Stuttgart Media University, adopting the valence method of user-experience evaluation (Burmester et al. 2010). This is a qualitative method involving extensive individual survey ses- sions with a limited number of test persons. It uses a rigid questioning structure: (1) fi rst impression, (2) similarities and differences between design variants, (3) valence of perceived effect and formal means, (4) appropriateness and preference. Then it randomizes test objects in or- der to allow for comparability and reduced reactivity or other bias (for example, caused by a specifi c sequence of exposure to test objects). While the rigid setting made sure that every participant had to answer exactly the same questions, it also led to a lack of depth in the answers that sometimes concealed the underlying reasons for a reaction. Due to the laboratory situation, many context factors that would normally infl uence the impact of a design object (position, light conditions, per- spective, personal needs, etc.) were ignored. Despite these drawbacks, the method proved to be fruitful for testing the effect hypotheses.

351 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

The empirical testing showed that visual effects can indeed, as presumed, be intentionally evoked by following specifi c design rules. At the same time, it became evident that viewing habits are very solid. For example, the train-formation posters in fi gures 10 and 11 were able, as intended, to evoke a young and dynamic or a light and spa- cious effect via the adopted design rules. However, both posters were associated with parties or playgroups rather than with public-trans- port information design, which is why they were fi nally dismissed as inappropriate for design of travel information. Unlike the rather con- ventional (and most positively rated) design in fi gure 9, the other two variants seemed to deviate too strongly from the neutral, objective, and plain design familiar to train stations or bus stops. A design that neglects the visual habits operative within a fi eld of design creates irritation and incomprehension (the posters were in fact not recog- nized as pieces of information design). This suggests the conclusion that the fi ne-grained design rules postulated and applied in the two re- search projects always go along with type-specifi c higher-order rules that make design objects recognizable as items belonging to a certain design type or fi eld. The effect survey with non-expert participants was followed by a focus-group session among design professionals so as to gain a qual- ifi ed evaluation of the created design artifacts and the practice-based research method. Especially the legitimacy and signifi cance of the ap- plied kind of rule-based, experimental research through design (that differs from commissioned work in various aspects) was a bone of con- tention within the expert group. On the whole, however, the adopted method of practice-based design research proved to be a powerful heuristic for the rule-based generation and testing of design effects.

Conclusion

Design rhetoric reveals the effect-oriented structure of design, the rules linking formal aspects of design artifacts to the manifold ways they affect us. So far, the specifi c methods and tools for capturing rhe- torical design rules have been rather nebulous. The new approaches developed at Bern University of the Arts—rhetorical design analysis and practice-based design research, consisting of the creation and empirical testing of design variants according to effect hypotheses— are designed to make a signifi methodological contribution to de- sign rhetoric in the long run. For the time being, issues surrounding

352 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ context sensitivity, generalizability, and vagueness in design effect/ rule determination and validation remain to be settled.

ᮃ Annina Schneller is a Philosopher and Researcher in Communication Design at Bern University of the Arts, responsible for the research fi eld of Design and Rhetoric. She is a student at the Graduate School of the Arts Bern. Her dissertation project “Amateur Graphics and the Rhetoric of Imperfection” was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. Recent publications: Annina Schneller. 2013. “The Visual Rhetoric of Signs: A Practice-Based Research Project on the Effects of Public Transport Information Design.” In Signs and Symbols for Workplace and Public Use, ed. Annie W.Y. Ng and Alan H.S. Chan, pp. 43–61. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 2014. “Die Rhetorik des Selbstgemachten im Grafi kdesign.” In Seriell—individuell: Handwerkliches im Design, ed. Gerda Breuer and Christopher Oestereich, pp. 193-207. Weimar: VDG. Address: Bern University of the Arts, Research area Communication Design, Fellerstrasse 11, 3027 Bern, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]. ᮄ

Notes 1. A triad of cognitive, affective, and conative/behavioral effects is commonly used in advertising effect theory and media psychology (for example, Giles 2003; Tellis 2004: 44), the cognitive corresponding to the rhetorical logos, the affective to pathos. As mentioned before, conative aspects of effect are secondary to the design effects treated in this paper and will not be dealt with in particular here. Besides, several theories, for example, the uses-and-gratifi cations approach, take it that the affective/ pathos-based and cognitive/logos-based impulses can account for motivational or vo- litional factors (Giles 2003: 187); however, there seems to be no counterpart to ethos. Can values and character be integrated into either the cognitive or affective impact level? In the mentioned literature, there is no consensus as to whether evaluation and attitudes rather belong to the cognitive, the affective, or even the conative area (Tellis 2004: 48). Involvement theory seems to establish personal concerns and values as independent factors in persuasion, playing—according to the elaboration likelihood model—a major role in the probability of cognitive processing of an information (Giles 2003: 114). The solution of rhetoric, which considers ethos an autonomous fi eld of persuasion, accordingly would seem not entirely off point. Moreover, by involving the authority, credibility, authenticity, and character of the sender, ethos incorporates an important context factor in persuasion often examined in the literature of other fi elds, for example, the source credibility or appraisal theories (Tellis 2003: 185; Giles 2003). Interestingly enough, the three “advertising appeals” of marketing theory—rational/in- formational, emotional, and moral—also mirror the rhetorical impact levels (for exam- ple, Kazmi and Batra 2008: 390 ff.). I do not mean to make any defi nitive statements here, but it does seem to make sense to distinguish three levels or aspects of impact: logos, pathos, and ethos as used in the rhetorical tradition are disproved neither by media-psychological nor marketing-impact theories.

353 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

2. Similarly to Panofsky’s (1962) “pre-iconographic level”, formal analysis de- scribes the artifact in technical terms such as color, shape, or texture, irrespective of the represented/iconographic content. 3. Following Baxandall’s (1985) “triangle of re-enactment”, the intended effect can be reconstructed from the artifact and its context alone, irrespective of the design- er’s actual intentions. 4. What counts as context or situational factor is a diffi cult and highly contentious problem. Recent approaches in media-effect research adopt a trimodal approach of communication offer, receiver, and situation (Bongard 2002: 293 ff. The strictly causal or at least linear relation between received object and receiving subject, between strength of impulse and strength of effect—as proposed by early behavioristic theories or simple hierarchical models of media effects such as the AIDA formula—is succes- sively supplemented with a set of intervening factors within and outside the receiving subject, such as social relationships, product placement, time pressure, credibility of source, previous knowledge, taste, mood, gratifi cation, or involvement (Ibid.). The lat- est developments in philosophical and sociological theory, such as or Actor-Network Theory (ANT), even put into question the dichotomy of text and context as well as of subject and object. Neither the objects of investigation nor the receiving subjects are given as such, but have to be conceived as equivalent players in an interconnected whole (Latour 2005). While I lack the authority to comment at length on this kind of criticism, I do think we can learn from ANT. It does not deny the existence of or the distinction between subjects and objects, but warns us to be careful and thoughtful about the habitual associations we have about human and non-human entities and their interrelations (for example, active versus passive). The ascription of intention, effect, or causality can only be established with regard to the whole network and its actors. 5. Designs by Simon Küffer (fi gures 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) and Hélène Jordi-Marguet (fi gure 9).

References Atzmon, Leslie. 2010. “Forms of Persuasion: The Visual Rhetoric of Design Artifacts.” The Radical Designist 2: 1–13. http://www.iade.pt/designist/issues/002_01.html (accessed 8 September 2015). Baxandall, Michael. 1985. Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pic- tures. New Haven: Yale University Press. Blair, J. Anthony. 2004. “The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments.” In Defi ning Visual Rheto- rics, ed. Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers, pp. 41–61. Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum. Bongard, Joachim. 2002. Werbewirkungsforschung: Grundlagen, Probleme, Ansätze. Münster, Germany: LIT. Bonsiepe, Gui. 1965. “Visual/verbal Rhetoric.” ulm 14/15/16: 23–40. Buchanan, Richard. 1985. “Declaration by Design: Rhetoric, Argument, and Demon- stration in Design Practice.” Design Issues 2(1): 4–22. Burmester, Michael, Marcus Mast, Kilian Jäger, and Hendrik Homans. 2010. “Valence Method for Formative Evaluation of User Experience.” Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Århus, Denmark, 2010, pp. 364– 367. New York: ACM.

354 DESIGN RHETORIC ᮄ

Ehses, Hanno. 1984. “Representing Macbeth: A Case Study in Visual Rhetoric.” Design Issues 1(1), 53–63. Ehses, Hanno. 1986. “Design and Rhetoric: An Analysis of Theatre Posters.” Design Papers 4: 1–36. Ehses, Hanno. 1995. “Visual Rhetoric: Old Ideas, Strange Figures, and New Perspec- tives.” Graphic Design Journal 3: 4–9. Findeli, Alain, Denis Brouillet, Sophie Martin, Christophe Moineau, and Richard Tar- rago. 2008. “Research Through Design and Transdisciplinarity: A Tentative Con- tribution to the Methodology of Design Research.” In Focused: Current Design Research Projects and Methods, ed. Swiss Design Network, pp. 67–91. Zürich: Swiss Design Network. Frayling, Christopher. 1993. “Research in Art and Design.” Royal College of Art Re- search Papers 1(1): 1–5. Giles, David. 2003. Media Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Joost, Gesche, and Arne Scheuermann. 2006. “Design as Rhetoric: Basic Principles for Design Research.” In Drawing New Territories, ed. Swiss Design Network, pp. 153–169. Zürich: Swiss Design Network. Joost, Gesche, and Arne Scheuermann, eds. 2008. Design als Rhetorik: Grundlagen, Positionen, Fallstudien. Basel: Birkhäuser. Kazmi, S. H. H., and Satish K. Batra. 2008. Advertising and Sales Promotion. New Delhi: Excel Books. Kinross, Robin. 1985. “The Rhetoric of Neutrality.” Design Issues 2(2): 18–30. Krippendorff, Klaus. 2006. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis. Krippendorff, Klaus, and Reinhart Butter. 1984. “Product Semantics: Exploring the Symbolic Qualities of Form.” Innovation 3 (1): 4–9. Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-The- ory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lidwell, William, Kritina Holden, and Jill Butler. 2003. Universal Principles of Design: 100 Ways to Enhance Usability, Infl uence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach Through Design. Gloucester, MA: Rockport. Mareis, Claudia. 2011. Design als Wissenskultur: Interferenzen zwischen Design- und Wissensdiskursen seit 1960. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Overbeeke, Kees. 2006. “Design Research: Generating Knowledge Through Design.” In Drawing New Territories, ed. Swiss Design Network, pp. 51–69. Zürich: Swiss Design Network. Panofsky, Erwin. 1962. Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Re- naissance. New York: Harper and Row. Schneller, Annina. 2009. “Visual Rhetoric in Commercial Graphics.” In Multiple Ways to Design Research: Research Cases that Reshape the Design Discipline, ed. Swiss Design Network, pp. 352–355. Milan, Italy: Edizioni. Schneller, Annina. 2010a. “Hypothesizing about Design from the Perspective of Visual Rhetoric.” In Questions, Hypotheses and Conjectures: Debates and Discussions on Projects by Early Stage and Senior Design Researchers, ed. Rosan Chow, Wolf- gang Jonas, and Gesche Joost, pp. 253–261. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. Schneller, Annina. 2010b. “The Visual Rhetoric of Public Transport Information De- sign.” In Negotiating Futures: Design Fiction, ed. Swiss Design Network, pp.158– 169/XII–XIII. Basel: Steudler Press.

355 ᮃ ANNINA SCHNELLER

Schneller, Annina, and Arne Scheuermann, eds. 2012. Visuelle Rhetorik 2: Regeln, Spielräume und Rhetorischer Nullpunkt im Informationsdesign am Beispiel des Öffentlichen Verkehrs. Bern: Bern University of the Arts. Steffen, Dagmar. 1997. “On A Theory of Product Language.” formdiskurs 3(3): 16–27. Tellis, Gerard J. 2004. Effective Advertising: Understanding When, How, and Why Ad- vertising Works. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Vihma, Susann. 1995. Products As Representations: A Semiotic and Aesthetic Study of Design Products. Helsinki: Helsinki University of Art and Design Press.

356 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.