How graphic designers do information design
Graphic design,
MetaDesign,
and information
design
Paul Stiff
Meta Design's work exempli­
fies what the best kind of
graphic design can offer infor­
mation design. The project of
designing the static passenger
information signs for Berlin's
public transport system is, in
its context, a heroic one. But
two of Erik Spiekermann's
claims - about representing
the public of users, and about
testing and legibility - do not
sustain close inspection. His
relish for critical debate is rare
among graphic designers: this
commentary on his conversa­
tion with Robin Kinross (which
appears on pages 2 9 - 4 0 of
this issue) seeks to extend
that debate.
Information Design Journal 7:1 (1993), 41-46. DOI 10.1075/idj.7.1.04sti
ISSN 0142-5471 / E-ISSN 1569-979X © John Benjamins Publishing Company
Erik Spiekermann is a graphic designer whose
company, MetaDesign, works on information
design projects - like forms, complex documen-
tation, passenger information for public trans-
port systems - as well as on the more usual kind
of 'graphics'. Most graphic designers can't do
this kind of work well, and don't want to do it.
MetaDesign's information design work looks
like a good deed in a naughty world. They prob-
ably do it as well as it can be done by graphic
design methods. They add something that
research can't provide, and which is hard to pin
down - a set of visual attributes which together
amount to an articulate form of advocacy. This
comes partly from a confidence that everyday
information, especially about public services,
can be presented with as much visual wit and
verve as design for shopping. It also comes part-
ly from a conviction that people need to be per-
suaded to attend before they will read, and that
graphic objects should offer pleasure. Meta-
Design are experienced and fluent in all this.
And perhaps - because they are immersed in
the image world of graphic design - they have
jaded palettes, and so feel the need to struggle
against their own boredom.
My reaction to the conversation between
Robin Kinross and Erik Spiekermann isn't sim-
ply to sit back in admiration. I want to know, for
example, what information designers can learn
from MetaDesign's method of designing. And,
more importantly, what non-professional
designers - who do most designing - can learn.
When Erik Spiekermann talks about design-
ing in the messy world, it sounds like a thought-
ful, critical, and well-informed approach to
Author's address
graphic design. What it doesn't suggest is any of Department of Typography &
the attributes which some information design- Graphic Communication
ers say distinguishes their methods from those University of Reading
PO box 239, Reading RG6 2AU
of plain graphic design. For example, there's no England
formal usability evaluation before, during, or
after a project. And no mention of interdisci-
41
 Paul Stiff ■ Graphic design, MetaDesign, and information design
plinary teamwork; of the thirty or so people at
MetaDesign, most have an art school training,
and there are no specialists in human factors or
1 O n pages 67 applied psychology. 1 What MetaDesigners do is
and 68 of this what thoughtful graphic designers have always
issue Jorge
done - empathised with readers, imagined
Frascara and
Bonnie Sadler themselves in the shoes of users. As ES says: 'It's
T a k a c h argue very easy for us, because most people in the stu-
that interdisci- dio use public transport. So we design for our-
plinary work in selves.' In the words of RK's question, their
information
method of evaluation is 'the designers going
design is the
way for graphic
around the city and using the signs'.
design to avoid
marginaliza- Are designers the same as users?
tion. MetaDesign clearly claims to speak and design
on behalf of users. Similarly 'social' accounts of
design - framed in such terms as 'trusteeship of
the public' - have attracted scorn (if unconvinc-
ingly, along with accusations of elitism and
arrogance) at recent meetings of the Informat-
ion Design Association (IDA) in London.
Donald Rather more compellingly, here is Donald
Norman, 1988. Norman in The psychology of everyday things
The psychology (1988, p. 155): 'Designers often think of them-
of everyday
selves as typical users. After all, they are people
things.
New York: too, and are often users of their own designs.'
Basic Books But, he goes on to say, 'There is no substitute
for interaction with and study of the actual
users of a proposed design.' He reasons:
Designers have become so proficient with the prod-
uct that they can no longer perceive or understand
the areas that are apt to cause difficulties. Even
when designers become users, their deep under-
standing and close contact with the device they are
designing means that they operate it almost entirely
from knowledge in the head. The user, especially
the first-time user, must rely almost entirely on
knowledge in the world. That is a big difference,
fundamental to the design. ... The designer simply
cannot predict the problems people will have, the
misinterpretations that will arise, and the errors that
will get made. And if the designer cannot anticipate
errors, then the design cannot minimize their occur-
rence or their ramifications. (p. 156)
Information design journal 7/1 (1993) 4 1 - 4 6
42
Objections from the 'real world'
Imagine some objections to this challenging
intervention. First, talk is cheap. Donald Nor-
man is an academic, a professor of psychology.
It's easy for armchair critics, but out on these
mean streets ... etcetera. Notice, however, that
ES does not take this line; on the contrary, he
has no time for 'us guys out here at the front
stuff.'
A second objection: the real world just isn't
like that. This is the strongest implication of
'talk is cheap' - that academic commentators
simply can't imagine the sheer messiness of
practical designing, or the forced limitations
within which designers have to work. Another
way of framing this objection is: don't blame
the designer, blame the client. Designing usable
and elegant solutions to communication prob-
lems isn't the real difficulty; rather, it lies in per-
suading clients of the value of those solutions,
persuading them that designing of any sort - let
alone evaluation - is worth doing. This is illus-
trated in ES's description of the Berlin transport
information job: 'With this particular client
[testing] just isn't possible. They didn't even
pay for the development of the typeface. ... As
a design job it's terrible: the client doesn't see it
as a design job. ... It's formulated as mending
and patching and only stepping in where neces-
sary.' This kind of complaint has also been
echoed in recent discussions within the IDA:
project budgets rarely include evaluation;
clients don't want it, nor do they see a need for
it. And nobody has to pay for communications
which fail because of inappropriate design; the
costs of failures rarely register on any depart-
mental balance sheet. And then there are the
hidden costs that people incur by having to
adapt, to make the best of poorly designed mes- J. Christopher
sages. J. Christopher Jones put it well in Design Jones, 1980.
Design meth­
methods (1980, p. 224): 'The sad thing is that
ods. (2nd edn)
human adaptability to, and tolerance of, poor New York: John
conditions is so great, but the cost of this adap- Wiley
 Paul Stiff Graphic design, MetaDesign, and information design
tation does not often enter the budgets of the
persons making design decisions.'
This leads on to the third objection: graphic
design has an image problem (except among
graphic designers). It isn't like the design of
human-computer interfaces, or like the most
advanced sectors of product design, where
human factors specialists are members of design
teams. The image problem means that graphic
designers often have to work very hard to get
clients to take their proposals seriously. As ES
says, it 'is seen as a frivolous afterthought, on
the level of advertising: what you do when
you've done everything else.' 2 So sometimes
clients get from graphic designers, like Meta-
Design, more than they deserve; good design
often occurs almost by subterfuge. And, as ES
claims, 'Anything we do is one hundred per
cent better than what was there before.' In any
case, who can show that the addition of human
factors expertise to the design team will lead to
a better solution than designers can deliver by
just using their own common sense? An exam-
ple often quoted (as Ken Garland does on page
57 of this issue) to support this sceptical view is
Henry C. Beck's design of the London Under-
ground diagram in 1933.
Counter-arguments
The first of these three objections can be dis-
posed of quickly. 'Talk is cheap' is associated
with the small-business world view (a narrowly
'market-realistic' view of what is possible or
2 Even the best current image of graphic design isn't good
enough. Chris Ludlow (whose company has worked rec-
ently on signing for L o n d o n U n d e r g r o u n d ) quoted rueful-
ly a review in Design magazine of 'award-winning graphics
consultancies'. T h e offending piece included phrases such
as 'Graphic design never seems quite as deserving of prizes
as product design and architecture ... Graphics, it m u s t be
said, has a lesser role in h u m a n affairs ... At best, graphic
design finds the right audience and makes the interaction
pleasing.' Ludlow's response: 'Well, that's my life's work
written off and then d a m n e d with faint praise.' (letter to
the editor, Design, January 1991, p . 4.)
Information design journal 7/1 (1993) 4 1 - 4 6
43
desirable). It could equally be used against peo-
ple who are employees in graphic design com-
panies - in fact, against anyone who is not
self-employed or a company owner. Donald
Norman is indeed an academic; so are many
people involved in information design. Their
conditions of employment may be different
from those of, say, partners in small businesses.
This difference may help academics to say
things which otherwise might not get said at all.
It may even be the reason why their views are of
interest to companies which invest heavily in
the usability of their products. (There is, of
course, another twist here: some information
design companies try to enlist the help of
'researchers' for much the same reasons that
men in lab coats appeared in the first toothpaste
adverts on tv.)
The second objection is stronger. Academics
are probably over-optimistic about the ease with
which interdisciplinary teams can be construct-
ed, and learn to work well together, and survive
the worst of corporate politics, and do the kinds
of observation and evaluation that feed produc-
tively into the design process. But it doesn't fol-
low that academics have just fallen off the
Christmas tree. Donald Norman cites the com-
ments of a number of professional designers.
For example, a designer working for a tele-
phone company : 'Design teams really need Donald
vocal advocates for people who will ultimately Norman, 1988.
The psychology
use the interface' (p. 156); and a design engi-
of everyday
neer: 'Most designers live in a world where the things.
gulf of evaluation is infinite. True, we often New York:
know the product too well to envision how peo- Basic Books
ple will use it, yet we are separated from end
users by multiple layers of corporate bureaucra-
cy, marketing, customer services, etc.' (p. 158)
Another case in point is the Communication
Research Institute of Australia, a non-profit
organization which partly supports its research
with the fee income it gets from contract work.
In other words, it does information design to
 Paul Stiff ■ Graphic design, MetaDesign, and information design
pay its way. Its director, David Sless, has a
robust approach to design methods in general
and to evaluation in particular (Sless 1991):
David Sless, Begin by establishing benchmarks - measures of
1991. 'Before your current performance. If you do not know what
you improve misunderstandings, problems, or errors in commu-
communica­ nication your organization is actually generating ...
tion' Commun­ you cannot begin to improve your practice. In gen-
ication News
eral, you should analyse and measure what people
(newsletter of
the Communic­
do. Avoid 'soft' measures such as opinion, attitude,
ation Research preference and recollection. ... There is no reliable
Institute of or predictable link between these measures and how
Australia) Nov- people behave. ... You cannot judge a potential
ember/Decem improvement on the basis of its appearance. What
ber 1991pp. appears to you as a better or simpler communica-
1-2 tion may not be so for your public. Simple tech-
niques such as putting yourself in your public's
position, using clear thinking, plain English and
good graphics, do not guarantee success. There is
now sufficient evidence that plain English and good
graphics, even when based on the generalizations
derived from research and applied by experienced
information designers, do not necessarily ensure
successful communication. Only trust evidence,
never appearances.
So David Sless would probably question ES's
claim that 'whatever we do is one hundred per
cent better' by asking 'better in what way?' and
'how do you know?' And close readers of rhet-
oric may ask why, of all the figures of speech ES
3 For a lively could have used to say that 'it is better', he
thread of spec- chose a numerical metaphor, as if to claim the
ulation about authority of a quantitative result derived from
the demise of some form of empirical testing.
graphic design,
The third objection - about graphic design's
both as ideolo-
gy and as prac-
image problem - is a reminder that the 'graph-
tice, see Robin ics' business in its various manifestations looks
Kinross, ' C o n - and sounds ever more like a way of adding value
versation with in retailing, or a fashion accessory, or an aid to
Richard Hollis corporate smoothing. The responsibility for
about graphic
graphic design's limited and waning credibility
design history',
Journal of Des- has to be laid at the door of designers them-
ign History, 5 selves. 3 (It's ironic here that the conversation
(1992) 7 3 - 9 0 . begins with RK's observation about information
Information design journal 7/1 (1993) 4 1 - 4 6
44
design's image problem: if only that was the
problem.) ES's mention of advertising may
remind graphics people that advertisers aren't
much concerned with the design of an adver-
tisement as an end in itself. They want to know
the effects of design, because they want to
change people's behaviour; so they have a keen
interest in the effectiveness of a campaign.
Their typical measures of effectiveness - deriv-
ed from market research methods - may be
unhelpful, or sometimes suspect, to information
designers. But the fact that they do attempt to
measure effects should be of genuine interest to
graphic designers.
Finally, about common sense and Harry
Beck's underground diagram. First, Beck
wasn't a graphic designer, though no doubt he
was a user of London Underground. What does
this say about graphic design skills? Second, a
profession which waits for the appearance of
another lone genius has still got a lot to learn
about methods. Third, we still don't actually
know whether the London underground map
is as effective as it could be. And fourth, J. Chris
Jones answers the claim about common sense:
'Designers are most unwise to accept the still J. Christopher
widespread notion that ergonomics is the same Jones, 1980.
thing as common sense. There is little chance of Design methods.
(2nd edn) New
locating the limits of human performance with- York: John Wiley
out careful measurements, and there is every
chance of completely overlooking, or misunder-
standing, user behaviour if no consultation or
observation precedes designing.' (Jones 1980,
p. 224)
Who needs legibility tests?
Now some observations about ES's remarks on
testing. If graphic designers think of tests, the
tests they think of are 'legibility tests'. It is pos-
sible that some of the problems that people have
in using a complex urban public transport sys-
tem might arise from illegible signs - because,
say, the signs are too small. But the kind of tests
 Paul Stiff Graphic design, MetaDesign, and information design
which E S wishes he could do aren't about legi-
bility in that sense. They're about relatively fine
adjustments of already-legible typefaces (Univ-
ers, Frutiger, or whatever) to ensure that the
different display technologies used for making
signs yield type appearances which are consis-
tent within an acceptable tolerance - so that, as
E S instances, 'the white-out-of-blue signs will
look the same weight as the black-on-yellow
ones'. This attention to visual detail is part of
a designer's professional preoccupation, here
about the consistency with which a corporate
image is displayed. In fact, these questions in
which he is interested probably can't be answer-
ed by the kinds of tools which collectively go
under the name of 'legiblity tests'.
ES calls legibility 'the critical side of it: the
almost physical laws of reading'. By contrast, he
says that readability is to do with 'motivation',
or 'whether it invokes in me a desire to read in
the first place'; on this view it is about making
reading attractive and pleasurable. It follows
from this that there is a more important sense in
which the tests which E S wants to do are the
wrong tests. Public transport users face many
problems of information use which are nothing
to do with typefaces and their legibility, nor
much to do with peoples' motivation to read.
They ask questions like: does this line take me
where I want to go? where do I change? can I
connect there, or do I have to go further? where
do I turn now? should I wait here or walk on?
when will the next arrive? how do I get out? and
so on. Legibility tests can't tell us how well the
design of the public information system helps
people to answer these kinds of questions for
themselves. Nor is ES's version of 'readability'
put to the test: he doesn't say how he establishes
that MetaDesign's design proposals really do
generate the kind of motivation which, he says,
people need before they will attend and read.
Information design journal 7/1 (1993) 4 1 - 4 6
45
Missing pieces
A month after the conversation between RK and
ES, a short article about the Berlin transport
information project appeared in New Scientist.
The article raised at least as many questions as Taryn Toro,
it answered. It said that MetaDesign 'based its 1992. 'Sign-
writing skills on
work on theories of cognitive psychology', and
test as design­
reported the views of Heiner Erke, a cognitive ers go under­
psychologist at the University of Brunswick, to ground', New
the effect that 'the different signs should help Scientist,
9 May 1992,
passengers to draw a mental map of the under-
p.10
ground'.4 Its author, Taryn Toro, does not say
whether Erke worked with MetaDesign on the
'pilot project at Alexanderplatz' or came in
afterwards; but we do read about Erke's and
Spiekermann's conflicting views on illuminated
signs. And the article supports ES's confidence
in MetaDesign's work, at least to the extent that
having some signs is better than having none:
'Whatever the outcome of the trial, the signs in
Alexanderplatz are a definite improvement...
directions were so bad that people had trouble
finding their way around. People working in the
station kiosks grew so tired of being asked for
directions, they put up their own makeshift
signs to speed passengers on their way.'
Two months after the New Scientist piece, an
article in Design referred to 'a pilot test of Meta- Michael Evamy,
Design's new "communication system" at Alex- 1992. Track
event', Design,
anderplatz'. Its author, Michael Evamy, observ- July 1992 pp.
ed that 'it can hardly fail to improve upon the 26-27
chaotic plexus of original signs'. He referred to
a 'customer questionnaire' which elicited an
'overwhelmingly positive reaction', though
there is passing mention of complaints that
'some of the new signs could do with being
slightly bigger'.
4 T h e New Scientist piece may be an example of the way
cognitive science gets loosely invoked as a last court of
appeal for information design. It may tell us more about a
journalist's difficulties in covering a story when the main
source is a press conference. T w o papers in this issue (by
Ric Lowe, and by Ernst Rothkopf and others) discuss ways
of characterising mental models.
 Paul Stiff ■ Graphic design, MetaDesign, and information design
The invisible user
What emerges from the three accounts of
MetaDesign's work for the BVG at Alexander-
platz - Toro's, Evamy's, and Erik Spieker-
mann's - is something like this. ES says that
'testing just isn't possible with this client'. But
when he says this, the tests he has in mind are
what he calls 'legibility tests'. By contrast the
two journalists, describing MetaDesign's work,
both refer to it as a 'pilot project', and talk
about 'trials'. The trials seem, predictably, to
have been based upon questionnaires - the kind
of market research tools which David Sless criti-
cizes as yielding only 'soft measures'.
ES doesn't refer to any of this. In reply to RK's
question 'Where do the public come in?' he
does not mention that his client, the BVG, was
asking, or planning to ask, passengers for their
opinions. Why the silence here? Two answers
seem possible. The first is that ES simply didn't
know that these tests were happening, because
his client thought it unnecessary to tell him.
(This answer would tell us something about
clients' views of designers: it would be another
case of the designer being sidelined by the
client.) But this is hard to imagine, and even
harder to imagine E S failing to find out. We can
assume, though, that the BVG made two deci-
sions without reference to MetaDesign: to use a
questionnaire rather than other evaluative tools;
and then about the conduct and precise content
of the questionnaire itself. T h e second possible
answer to the question why E S didn't mention
the BVG'S plans for testing is that he did know
about them, but did not think them relevant to
his work. (This answer would tell us something
about designers' views of what design is about
and how they think it is done.)
ES concludes: 'design is not art. It has a pur-
pose, defined not by the artist, but by the
client.' If this sounds less convincing than it
should do, then this is because it has been
undermined by what he has already said about
Information design journal 7 / 1 (1993) 4 1 - 4 6
46
'designing for ourselves' and about clients who
cannot understand, let alone define, 'purpose'.
It must be good for travellers in Berlin that
MetaDesign, rather than engineers or the more
usual kind of graphic designers, are designing
the BVG'S public information system. And it
may well be that the results of MetaDesign's
designing are more persuasive than ES's expla-
nations of designing. This is a commonplace
about professional designers: what they do is
more convincing than what they say. The trou-
ble here is, 'just do it' may be a good slogan for
sport, but is not acceptable for designing, and
certainly not for information design. Designing
has to become a better informed activity. Pro-
fessional designers, who do little of all the
designing that gets done, have to become more
articulate explainers: black boxes won't wash.
What ES says doesn't, in the end, do much to
unsettle business as usual - the routine round
of contests between graphic designers and their
clients. Clients don't see the need for usability
evaluation; nor do designers. When clients want
more plausible evidence than designers' asser-
tions, they turn to market research; designers do
not, perhaps cannot, argue for an alternative.
The shared complacency is mutually sustaining;
meanwhile, the users remain barely visible.
Graphic designers might reasonably claim
that there are few convincing models to show
them just how appropriate kinds of evaluative
tools and procedures can be integrated produc-
tively into design practice. T h e methods which
have evolved in academic research environ-
ments are not necessarily right for the job; nor
are those associated with usability labs, and in
any case, most designers - including human
factors specialists working in design - do not
have access to usability labs (Black, 1993). Alison Black,
It is presently easier to talk about all this than to 1993. 'On not
demonstrate what can be done. A challenge - having a usabil­
ity lab'
perhaps the challenge - for information design (unpublished
is to show how it could be otherwise. paper)