Chapter 14: Visual representation of risks
There is a Korean saying which goes “A thousand hearings are not worth one seeing.” We know by experience, and also from the back-up explanation form our textbook that “visuals help people understand and remember content” better than text exclusively (p.213). This is no different in a risk situation. In fact, this can be the most strategic method not only to get the message out there, but also to increase the level of understanding concerning the risk. Emelo provided real life experience that highly stresses the effectiveness of a visual representation of risks, and Katie raises concern towards the not-so-convincing design elements of the visual aids. What I’m going to emphasis is the “dark side” of visual components. As OT stated in his blog, a picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take off a thousand words.
I remember us discussing the issue of uncertainty and probability last class. Out tentative conclusion was that communicate facts, not estimates. The book chapter gives a different opinion and set out examples such as human figures and bar charts (p.234) to communicate risk visually. This is rather contrasting with our discussion that estimates cause frustration and may even bring upon further risk situations. Since communicating uncertainty underlines the possibility of unexpected action, it is essential that the source at least be credible. This makes me scratch my head since proof of credibility seems more difficult for visuals. Of course when using illustrations, bar graphs and pie charts is rather free from this worry since they are simply “visualized” numbers and statistics. What about photographs of a smoker’s lung? How credible will that be when conditions can differ due to various reasons? How can we be so sure that the photos were not extreme examples and it will occur similarly to all of those who smoke? If you think further, the same issues raise for graphs and bars. Our textbook gives us an example how misinterpretation of visuals provides a false reality. The study conducted on 1994 to examine suicide rates among different age groups in Milwaukee was visualized via pie chart. According to the pie proportion, 28.5% of youths between 10-29 committed suicide while people aged 65 and older accounted nearly 20% of all suicides. While it seems like suicide rates are more common in younger generations, in reality senior rates were more of a problem. It turns out only 13% of total population is those of 65 years and older (p.220).
Another factor I personally think is important when communicating risk through visuals is that people tend to take text messages more seriously. It may be true that people perceive visuals six times better and remember pictures longer than words. However, the importance of text should never be ignored. The human society emphasize reading and writing for a reason: if visuals were the most appropriate method to learn and remember information, it would have been the dominant methodology to learn. Design can affect people’s decision, color pallets can influence people’s mood, and flashy picture can hinder people’s curiosity to seek further information. Visuals are additional content to enhance the understandings, not a single method to communicate solely. Too many perceptions and too much misinterpretation will occur if visuals become the dominant source to communicate risk.
Finally, there’s a factor regarding that people may block out further communication when the visuals appear to be too daunting and extreme. I’m sure all of you have seen the graffiti on the wall of a yellow brick building across Oaks mall. The wall shows a picture of a young teenager smoking on one side with a cool sort of smile on his face, and on the other half of the wall, the same kid is frowning and sitting in front of the doctor. Here, you see that his lungs are all grey and it seems pretty apparent that this kid’s lungs are going to fail him. Block letters along the picture said something about looking cool doesn’t mean that you’re staying cool. I am not sure what the exact words are. It was a message targeted towards youths to prevent smoking, and guess what. My brother, who happens to be fourteen, turns his head away from the picture whenever we wait for the traffic. He says the picture “grosses him out.” He got the message all right but he refused to see or hear further information about smoking. We see a study in mass communication that searches for the correlation between fear appeals and message intake. When the level of fear becomes too extreme, people walk away from the message. You have to be careful what you present in a risk situation. People are already scared: you don’t want to scare them away!
Visual representations of risks should be handled with text, after audience analysis has been done, and in the most accurate and objective level without any extreme pictures or other design components to drive people away.
I remember us discussing the issue of uncertainty and probability last class. Out tentative conclusion was that communicate facts, not estimates. The book chapter gives a different opinion and set out examples such as human figures and bar charts (p.234) to communicate risk visually. This is rather contrasting with our discussion that estimates cause frustration and may even bring upon further risk situations. Since communicating uncertainty underlines the possibility of unexpected action, it is essential that the source at least be credible. This makes me scratch my head since proof of credibility seems more difficult for visuals. Of course when using illustrations, bar graphs and pie charts is rather free from this worry since they are simply “visualized” numbers and statistics. What about photographs of a smoker’s lung? How credible will that be when conditions can differ due to various reasons? How can we be so sure that the photos were not extreme examples and it will occur similarly to all of those who smoke? If you think further, the same issues raise for graphs and bars. Our textbook gives us an example how misinterpretation of visuals provides a false reality. The study conducted on 1994 to examine suicide rates among different age groups in Milwaukee was visualized via pie chart. According to the pie proportion, 28.5% of youths between 10-29 committed suicide while people aged 65 and older accounted nearly 20% of all suicides. While it seems like suicide rates are more common in younger generations, in reality senior rates were more of a problem. It turns out only 13% of total population is those of 65 years and older (p.220).
Another factor I personally think is important when communicating risk through visuals is that people tend to take text messages more seriously. It may be true that people perceive visuals six times better and remember pictures longer than words. However, the importance of text should never be ignored. The human society emphasize reading and writing for a reason: if visuals were the most appropriate method to learn and remember information, it would have been the dominant methodology to learn. Design can affect people’s decision, color pallets can influence people’s mood, and flashy picture can hinder people’s curiosity to seek further information. Visuals are additional content to enhance the understandings, not a single method to communicate solely. Too many perceptions and too much misinterpretation will occur if visuals become the dominant source to communicate risk.
Finally, there’s a factor regarding that people may block out further communication when the visuals appear to be too daunting and extreme. I’m sure all of you have seen the graffiti on the wall of a yellow brick building across Oaks mall. The wall shows a picture of a young teenager smoking on one side with a cool sort of smile on his face, and on the other half of the wall, the same kid is frowning and sitting in front of the doctor. Here, you see that his lungs are all grey and it seems pretty apparent that this kid’s lungs are going to fail him. Block letters along the picture said something about looking cool doesn’t mean that you’re staying cool. I am not sure what the exact words are. It was a message targeted towards youths to prevent smoking, and guess what. My brother, who happens to be fourteen, turns his head away from the picture whenever we wait for the traffic. He says the picture “grosses him out.” He got the message all right but he refused to see or hear further information about smoking. We see a study in mass communication that searches for the correlation between fear appeals and message intake. When the level of fear becomes too extreme, people walk away from the message. You have to be careful what you present in a risk situation. People are already scared: you don’t want to scare them away!
Visual representations of risks should be handled with text, after audience analysis has been done, and in the most accurate and objective level without any extreme pictures or other design components to drive people away.
posted by Min at
2/13/2007 11:05:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home