Designing Risk: Visual Representation of Risks

It's no surprise that people understand images better than text. Lately I have been visiting several doctors in the area and I've been seeing a lot of old, cheesy pamphlets and posters. Although they do make information easier to understand, and the information may still be relevant, I can not help but wonder if the outdated look means outdated information. I consider myself knowledgeable about design and visual communication, so I am probably harsher in my judgment than the average joe. However, page 217 illustrates how I typically see health risk information communicated. Who is making these horrid illustrations? Are they effective despite their resemblance to 1970s and '80s educational cartoons? I wish this chapter had addressed the importance of good, modern design techniques to communicate effectively. I think people are aware of what's modern looking and what appears outdated. If the information is new and "cutting-edge" (so to speak) then the design should reflect that.

The authors emphasize pre-testing graphics with those who will use them. Nothing and no one will speak louder to the designer(s) and communicator(s) than the audience who is supposed to use and understand the information. I would argue that the pre-testing rarely happens in many organizations and I run into this a lot as a Web designer. How do you politely tell the powers-that-be that they are not the audience? No matter how well you think you know your audience or pretend to use and absorb the information as they would, pre-testing is the only way to be sure the visuals are communicating as intended. I always tell my clients something along the lines of, “You can never assume they (the audience) will understand something or make the same logical connections that you and I can make. We have to make it blatantly obvious or see what the user says.” Until someone invents “audience goggles,” (similar to beer goggles) so we can see what our audience sees, pre-testing makes our jobs as risk communicators a whole lot easier in the end. One thing the authors did not address the amount of time it takes to do pre-testing and then to make the changes based on audience feedback. You may find that you need to overhaul the entire thing or go with an entirely different media, which could be immensely time-consuming.

Many news sites create interactive communication pieces. See http://www.toxiclegacy.com/ for an example of what’s called a “Flash news package.” I think this is a good way to create a communication process that the user can control and interact with. I see this as a potential means to communicate risk visually as well. Although, I’m not sure how much time a person would want to spend with something like that. I know podcasts and RSS feeds are trendy to have on a Web site these days, but I’m not sure about their effectiveness as risk communication tools. The Web offers so many options for communicating with people, but there are certainly some types of information that are more effective in other forms.

I went searching on the Web for some visual representations of citrus canker. I was disappointed to find broken links on the USDA site for fact sheets in English and Spanish on how to prevent the spread of citrus canker. I did find UF/IFAS’ Web site for it: http://canker.ifas.ufl.edu/index.asp. If you’re going to take advantage of the Web to communicate risk information, you better use it wisely. You’re not limited by print cost or space limitations, so jazz it up! The UF/IFAS Citrus Canker Extension program site communicates no more effectively than a sheet of paper with text on it. I better stop typing about this before I get a call to re-design this site for them.