In my job I conduct a large amount of research, and but also create plenty
of presentations. To help design good research, we have access to hundreds of
published research on research papers. Yet when it comes to designing
presentations or using any form of visuals, we have to rely largely on gut
instinct and experience to evaluate what works best. There are plenty of
well-established working practices and graphic design experts who are exceptionally
good at what they do, but very little research to help us to understand the
impact of different graphic design techniques, certainly in the market research
arena.
Perhaps one of the reasons is that that graphic designers and market
researchers don’t encounter each other very often.
A joint quest: researcher and
graphic designer
Last year part of the Guardian's digital graphics unit responsible for creating
some of the most famous infographics circulated online, formed their own company,
the Graphic Digital Agency and happened to move into the same offices as our
research team in Westminster and we got talking about infographic design and the lack of
research to understand how it works. I was curious to know what they knew about
the science of design and I found out they were as curious as me. So we though, using our experience in
conducting research on research and their skills in graphic design to produce
the source material this represented a very good opportunity for us to work
together to do some experimentation. We
sent out on a joint quest to try and learn more about how visuals really work.
We ended up conducting over 70 experiments and tested over 500 visuals,
icons, charts, presentation and infographics on over 10,000 respondents in five
countries, one of the most extensive pieces of primary research I think we have ever
conducted. The complete findings have been published across two ESOMAR papers: The quest to design the perfect
icon, Puleston J & Sazuki S ESOMAR (2014) & Exploring the use of
visuals in the delivery of research data, Puleston J, Frost A, Stuart T, ESOMAR
(2014) . But I thought I would publish a summary of what we have learnt on
my blog site.
Visuals work!
Whilst this has been a very extensive piece of exploratory research, I
have to say much of what we have proved you probably already instinctively know:
Visuals can have an astonishing impact on improving the efficiency with which
we consume information.
Whist this is already apparent to most of us, what we’ve been able to do
is put some real numbers behind this statement, and understand more clearly how
visuals work in graphic design.
Throughout our research we found that facts presented together with
visuals could be anywhere up to twice a memorable as those same facts presented
without. Testing over 120 different ways of presenting visually various pieces
of factual information, in all but a couple of occasions, the visualised
information was more memorably that the facts alone. The message is clear: almost
any visual will help make any form of information delivery more effective.
The question really is, why? In
our research we began to deconstruct how visuals work, breaking down every
element of the communication process. Testing how quickly visuals were
processed compared to text, the curiosity they generated, and how they
motivated people to consume the facts. We looked at what respondents noticed,
and the detail of what they remembered and questioned whether they would want
to share the information they had consumed. This is a summary of the most important
learnings:
1. The
human brain thinks in pictures, not text
Humans process visual information much more efficiently than text. Our
brains are designed to process imagery and we can do it incredibly
quickly.
In our experiments we flashed visual material for fractions of a second
to consumers, and we tested hundreds of icons and logos. We found the images
could be processed at least twice as fast as the words used to describe them
and many logos upwards of four times faster.
We are therefore more likely to take notice of visual information than
text based facts because our brains derive meaning from it more efficiently. So
if we are searching for information, a relevant visual helps navigate us
towards it more quickly.
2. When
designing icons, the more “literal” your visual, the better
In order for visuals to be effective in their iconic form, i.e. when
they are being used to signpost information, they have to be very accurate -
literally “iconic” - and they have to be descriptive yet without any
superfluous detail.
In our experiments we learnt that very simple one or two colour designed
icons are selected far faster than the full colour, more detailed icons. Colour
and detail can slow down processing information as our brains are distracted, looking
for meaning in all the erroneous visual detail.
Our research revealed that we principally use shape to navigate and
process icons. Colour only has a value if it helps to literally describe the
object. The colour blue might help to
speed identifying a glass of water, but colour added to the Apple logo slowed
down its identification. We found that
logos with clear distinct shapes were processed much faster than logos in boxes
or other shapes. For instance in our experiments the Gap logo, contained within
a box, took twice as long to be processed as the Coca-Cola logo.
3. A
balance is necessary between visual simplicity and descriptive detail
Whist too much colour detail could make icons difficult to process
efficiently, detail is nevertheless often important especially in a research
context. Too little visual detail and you run the risk that the icon will
misrepresent what it’s trying to convey. There’s a balance to be maintained between
visual simplicity and descriptive detail.
4. Visuals
that “sell” their information need to work differently
.
The biggest challenge we face in modern day communication is getting
people to bother to read your selling message and take notice of it. We process
visual information all day long, often totally unconsciously or
“pre-attentively”. The challenge is not just to facilitate information be
processed and identified efficiently. Visuals also have another role, to “sell”
the information. To do that they must, stand out, provoke our curiosity and
then hold our attention.
Visuals are the gatekeeper to engaging the conscious brain. Our
subconscious mind uses rules to decide what to take notice of – the main one
being “is it interesting?” Once interested, an alert goes out to engage the
higher processing resources of the brain to take notice.
The problem with literal visuals is that they are not normally very effective
at this. Visuals that catch the attention or provoke curiosity are different. Here,
juxtaposition and lack of immediate clarity can be an advantage.
Take this simple example of two visuals used to “advertise” a fact about
the top speed of a supermarket trolley.
Using a visual of racing car is a very literal interpretation of the
construct of speed its meaning is instantly apparent. In contrast, the second
image of a bike rider perched on a trolley require some deciphering, and in
doing so, provokes curiosity. The only way you will find out what the curious
looking visual means is by reading the fact. Consequently in post-exposure fact
recall tests, 40% more people recalled this piece of information.
5. Effective
visuals ask questions
Good visuals need to provoke our curiosity. They have to ask a question
and there are several ways of doing this. One strategy is to frame something in
an unusual way, by presenting a puzzle that the brain cannot solve
subconsciously.
Below is a lovely example. The first image very literally describes the
travel of a supermarket trolley in a conventional way. The second shows a picture
of The Proclaimers, which if you are not British may be a little meaningless but they were a Scottish band who had a famous hit called "500 miles". The image asked a
great intriguing question: “Why are they
showing a picture of The Proclaimers?” The
fact is the answer, and as a result, the fact was nearly 50% more memorable.
6.
Building metaphoric associations improves
recall
In our experiments it was clear that visuals making metaphoric
associations help us to remember factual information most efficiently. The example below shows the effect.
Quantifying the number of broken trolleys as “two Wembley stadiums full”
doubles the recall of this fact, but visualising this analogy trebled the
fact’s memorability.
7. But
don’t overtax the brain
A good visual alerts your brain
by presenting a twist on the expected. It asks a question that you’re curious
to know the answer to. However if your brain cannot solve the puzzle, there is
a danger that it will be processed out.
Take this example below. The first is an image of a server room and can
easily be connected to facts about data storage. The second image of clouds is
more abstractly connected to “cloud storage”, a connection most people failed
to make. This is one exceptional example
where the imagery actually had a negative impact on recall. People
subconsciously concluded that these facts were simply not worth remembering.
8. We
use mental heuristics to process visuals
It might be a cliché, but we are more likely to take notice of images with human beings in them. Our research revealed that human faces increased the noticeability of content by upwards of 20%.
This is an example of one of the types of short-cuts our brain takes to
decide if a visual is interesting or not. “A human is looking at me!” – we are
primevally programmed to react to this. Primitive as it may sound, a message
delivered in red is, we found, more memorable than a message delivered in green
or blue again by around 20%. Red alerts our brains, it’s a colour associated
with warning messages.
9.
The primary decision-making heuristic: is it
new or different?
Human brains also come programmed to be alert for differences in order
to survive, to spot opportunities and threats. So our brains are on the lookout
for things that are different, juxtaposed, or unexpected.
Take this example of a page of infographics versus a page of facts
presented in basic PowerPoint. We flashed each of these visuals for a second to
respondents and the infographic version prompted 50% more curiosity to consumer. Consistently in all comparisons we tested,
more unusual use of visuals prompted more curiosity to consume.
10. The
entertainment value of visuals encourages us read them
One of the main things we tried to quantify in our experiments was the
entertainment value visuals offer, motivating us to continue to reading visual
content. We conducted a number of experiments where we would, for example, show
people the first half of a page of factual information and asked them if they
were curious to read more. In nearly every case the using visuals increased the
propensity to read by on average of 40%.
11. We mentally amass more facts from
a visualised presentation
When presented with lots of
facts in one presentation it becomes difficult to store them all in our memory.
It’s clear that visuals really can help us to amass information more
efficiently. In the experiment below we compared the net recall of facts from a
visualised presentation designed by Insites consulting with a control group who
saw just the facts in a non-visualised version. 40% more facts overall were
retained.
12. Good
visuals have a halo effect
Good visual can have a halo effect, motivating people to read and
remember other content surrounding it. Take the example below: the only
difference in these two basic pages of infographic information is the choice of
chart. The more attention-grabbing polar area chart made the associated fact
about the number of trolleys stolen significantly more memorable.
13. Visual
information overload can detract from memorability of content
There is a point at which visual information reaches overload, a
saturation point where the visual elements start to detract from the
memorability of the content. The examples below show this. The Graphic Digital Agency
produced four versions of the same page of factual information in each version
increasing the level of visual elements. A point is reached where the visual
elements start to detract from the memorability of the content.
We have explained how people use variation in design as a signpost to
identify interesting things. When we use very little variation in design
format, we observed much lower recall of the content. As variation was
introduced, more information was recalled.
There is a point, however, where variance becomes the norm: everything
is different. In this scenario we cannot work out what should be prioritised in
our memory. So be warned, with increasing variation comes diminishing
returns.
Nothing
different? à Something different! à Everything different?
14. Colour plays an important role
We are attracted to colour,
it makes things stand out. A colourful design engages our emotions and tells us
subconsciously that the content is interesting.
But remember our brains alway try to seek meaning from colour. When colour is used in a random way it can be
detrimental, causing mental chaos, as our brains seeking to make sense of the
colours.
We were able to measure this
with a series of very simple experiments. Adding unnecessary colours/shading to
bar charts for example reduced the memorability of the chart content by upwards
of 15%.
Adding background colours to
icons in search tasks significantly slowed down the speed at which icons could
be accurately identified.
Colour backgrounds = 20% slower identification
15. Visuals
play a role in making information shareable
The final part of the story of visuals is the role they have in making
people want to share information. In testing all the visuals we asked people to
rate how likely they would be to share them with others. What was clear was
that the rules that make a visual shareable and a visual that is memorable do
not have a high correlation.
For something to be shared, design quality standards become much more
important.
Take this obtuse example below: the badly rendered clip art visual is
very distinctive, achieving higher memorability, yet few would want to share
it.
Visual aesthetics seem to be very important when it comes to people’s
willingness to share. Perhaps this is because if visuals look good, they reflect
well on the sender.
Often it’s quite subtle. Take these two examples below. There was little
to distinguish the memorability of the facts presented in these two different
ways, but 50% more people said they would want to share the first second version,
where more attention was paid to the design than the second.
In summary
Human beings are very efficient at processing visual imagery. Good visuals
work because they enable us to make pre-attentive judgements as to whether to
engage the higher processing resources of the brain.
“Literal” visuals are best for consumers searching for specific
information and, for these purposes, clarity and detail are incredibly
important. “Abstract” visuals that ask a question are best when you want them to
“sell” information. Good, effective “selling”
visuals should ask a question where the fact is the answer.
We have learnt too the important role visuals can play in anchoring
information in our memories and making the information more retrievable. There is clearly a point where visuals overload and overwhelm. They need
to be used as a tactical tool.
When all factors are combined, the fact that we process visual
information faster with visuals, that visuals help advertise information,
motivate us to consume information, help us to recall information and encourage
us to share information all creates a multiplier effect.
Take this final example I would like to show you illustrate. A famous infographic created by David McCandless, the master of infographics, that I think perfectly demonstrates the power an impact of visualization. You can’t help be curious to read it and examine the information presented to you. The city icons on the top of the bars draw you in to examine the detail – and these creates memory associations. In head to head tests against the same information visualised in a basic bar chart in out experiments, we found consumers being more than twice as interested to read the information, they dwelled upon the detail for 50% longer and more than 80% of the information in McCandless’s version was recalled post-exposure and the information in this visual form is also infinitely more sharable. Search for this visual on the web and it returns 60,000+ links literally millions of people have consumed these facts. These facts presented in a visually engaging way have made the information thousands of times more impactful than if they had been simply presented as facts alone.
The basic chart...
When you consider some of the uplift figures from our research, the
maths speaks for itself. Take a typical visual that gets pre-attentively
processed twice as fast, provokes 50% more curiosity to read, encourages 50%
more reading, results in 50% more facts being recalled, and is shared 50% more
= a well visualised fact has the potential to be 10 times more impactful than
an un-visualised fact
No comments:
Post a Comment