Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Formes brèves

 | 
Cécile Meynard
, 
Emmanuel Vernadakis

Deuxième partie : Formes brèves : théories et pratiques

How to create short forms in communication by replacing words with images : a pedagogical approach to universal design

Wendy Winn

Texte intégral

  • 1 D. Robert, “Tuesday Chew: Google’s Patrick Hofmann tells us why design shouldn’t necessarily blow y (...)

1Like never before, images are replacing words, given their ability to communicate succinct and memorable messages to a wide variety of audiences. Every new application for our handheld devices seemingly adds an array of icons to our visual vocabulary. Between 2007 and 2010 alone, User Experience Designer and Usability Specialist, Patrick Hoffman, created thousands of icons for Google Maps and Google Earth.1

  • 2 O. Neurath, International Picture Language; the First Rules of Isotype: With Isotype Pictures, Lond (...)
  • 3 Ibid., p. 17.
  • 4 Ibid., p. 18.
  • 5 M. Neurath, “ISOTYPE,” Instructional Science, 3, New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1974, pp. 12 (...)

2In the early 20th century, Austrian philosopher and scientist, Otto Neurath, grasped the power of the visual and developed a sign system called ISOTYPE (International System of TYpographic Picture Education).2 His vision was to create a unified visual language: “We have made one international picture language (as a helping language) into which statements may be put from all the normal languages of the earth.”3 It was his belief that “words make division, pictures make connection.”4 Theoretically grounded in logical positivism and Gestalt principles, he designed and then promoted his visual sign system through statistical charts at four innovative museums he founded across Europe.5

3Neurath’s protégé, Rudolph Modley, introduced this visual language, what he called pictographs, to the United States in 1930 though he moved away from a universal focus, saying the following:

The American development of pictorial statistics has tried to avoid overstandardization of symbols. It has not wanted to create an international picture language with all the rigid forms and abstract concepts which support that idea ; it has wanted to bring symbols to life and to adapt them to each new audience… This personal touch may have to vary from country to country, from audience to audience.

4Yet its lasting impact nationally and globally is still felt in such systems as road signs, Olympic and airport signage, company logos, and computer interface and telephone application icons, among the primary examples. Conversely, emojis, thought to be the new “universal language,” can in fact communicate very culture-specific meanings; for example, the popular thumbs up sign is viewed positively in Western cultures, but is regarded as highly offensive in Greece and the Middle East.

5Internationally, IKEA can be considered an industry leader in adopting wordless instructions for the products it sells. Other companies like Hewlett Packard use only visual instructions, in their case, to demonstrate printer cartridge replacement. These choices can list the following motivations: reaching a more global audience, rethinking text-heavy manuals, reducing translation costs, and removing barriers to access.

6Young people are highly technology-literate with a savvy knowledge about brevity, given their heavy reliance on texts, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook IM to communicate with others, where they freely mix words, abbreviations, acronyms, symbols, emojis, and images. As a result, it creates an ideal pedagogical opportunity: teaching students who understand the value of short forms of communication how to effectively design images that can communicate across borders, which can benefit them now and potentially in their future careers. What follows then are three pedagogical approaches to universal design.

The Approaches

ISOTYPE

  • 6 E. Lupton, “Reading Isotype,” Design Issues. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1986, p. 47.
  • 7 W. Winn, “Increasing Accessibility with a Visual Sign System : A Case Study,” Journal of Technical (...)
  • 8 Ibid., p. 456.

7ISOTYPE brings together a number of elements, including logical positivism, Gestalt theory, semiotics, and conventions. As a founding member of the logical positivist movement, Otto Neurath believed vision to be “the saving link between language and nature, and that, hence, pictorial signs would provide a universal bridge between symbolic, generic language and direct empirical experience.”6 This view thus “isolates” visual from verbal communication: Neurath saw “the eye/brain connection as a mechanical process that every human being shares, making perception universal,”7 independent of culture or history for meaning (Lupton). To him, “pictures were neutral modes of expression (with photographs being the most neutral of all) and perception ‘eclipsed’ interpretation.”8 His application of Gestalt theory reinforces the eye/brain connection.

  • 9 Lupton, op. cit., p. 51.

8Gestalt theory “implies a universal ground for artistic judgment, based on unchanging structures of the mind and brain. Gestalt esthetics makes of abstract ‘elemental’ form a trans-historical foundation which unites man in spite of changing cultural references.”9 Based on perception, Gestalt lists five principles: figure/ground, similarity, closure, continuity, and proximity. All five are evident in Neurath’s visual sign system from which he devises five characteristics for every symbol. They must each be self-explanatory, simple, generic, flat (no perspective) or isometric (a distorted, multi-sided view), and uniform. Figure 1 shows four such examples. The symbols are easily recognizable even though the car is dated, simply designed with minimized detail, generic as they each represent all types of a particular class, mostly flat (the slight angle and smoke do suggest a moving ship), and uniform regardless their actual size.

Figure 1. Example of ISOTYPE symbols

Figure 1. Example of ISOTYPE symbols

(Source : Modley and Lowenstein, p. 25)

9In designing his system, which took almost a decade to perfect, Neurath and his team incorporated two central tenets:

    • 10 Ibid., p. 54, author’s emphasis.

    Reduction: “The implicit, rhetorical function of the reduction is to suggest that the image has a natural, scientific relationship to its object, as if it were a natural, necessary essence rather than a culturally learned sign.”10 Reduction means reducing something to its simplest form or essence, like a silhouette. Neurath believes this tenet is demonstrated in four of his five characteristics: self-explanatory, simple, generic, and flat.

    • 11 Ibid., p. 56.

    Consistency: “[R]hetorically, stylistic consistency gives the effect of an ordered, self-sufficient ‘language.’ The repetition of line weights, shapes, boldness, and detail suggests the presence of a logically developed system, a uniform language of visual forms.”11 Consistency addresses the uniformity of the sign system where repetitive symbols appear like letters in an alphabet, which is Neurath’s fifth characteristic.

10Additional features unique to the system were to show quantities using multiple symbols, not larger or smaller symbols; to use strong contrasting colors between symbols and background (black against white was used for printing purposes, but also became standardized); to create levels of reading, beginning with the most salient points; and, for the most part, to follow a reading pattern of top to bottom and left to right with time descending (M. Neurath). If we look at figure 2, we recognize by the layout that there is some type of relationship between telephones and cars, then we see there is a comparison being made between the volume of telephones and cars produced between two countries (France and Germany) in two specific years (1914 and 1937), and finally we discover that Germany produced more telephones than France in both years and France produced more cars than Germany in both years. The design is intended to tell a story that pulls the reader in using layers of information.

11If we want the “gestalt” of a particular phenomenon, Neurath’s charts give us the whole picture in its simplest form. In figure 2, we see how all the elements come together: black silhouettes against a white background (figure/ground); simple, repeatable symbols (similarity); symbols in rows (continuity); fractions of symbols (closure); and all of the symbols together as one unit (proximity).

Figure 2. A sample ISOTYPE chart.

Figure 2. A sample ISOTYPE chart.

(Source : Lupton 1986)

  • 12 C. Peirce, “Logic as Semiotic: The theory of Signs,” in R. Innis (ed.), Semiotics: An Introductory (...)
  • 13 J. Liszka, A general introduction to the semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce, Bloomington: Indiana (...)

12To understand how these symbols make meaning requires a look to semiotic theory, which, at its base, is the sign. In Peirce’s definition, “A sign, or representamen, is something, which stands to somebody for something in some respect or capacity.”12 The universe is therefore “perfused with signs,” according to Peirce, including “pictures, symptoms, words, sentences, books, libraries, signals, orders of command, microscopes, legislative representatives, musical concertos, performances of these,”13 just to name a few. Anything can be a sign as long as someone interprets it as having meaning. As we know from experience, however, these meanings may vary between people and cultures.

13While Peirce introduces a complex web of terminology, icon, index, and symbol are most appropriated from his work because these terms describe the relation or correlation between the sign and its object, as seen in these definitions:

  • With an icon, the relationship between the sign and its object is one of likeness. The cow, car, ship, and businessman in figure 1 are all iconic.

  • With an index, the relationship between the sign and its object is one of inference or causation. The telephone and the car in figure 2 are indexical as they infer a number.

  • With a symbol, the relationship between the sign and its object is one of convention. As seen in both figures, each sign is designed to symbolize all types of a particular class, as opposed to a specific cow, car, ship, businessman, or telephone.

14In these definitions, the three aspects of signs may appear to be mutually exclusive, but that is not so. A sign may be primarily indexical, for example, but also have iconic and symbolic aspects, as is the case with the signs in Neurath’s charts. In figure 2, for example, the telephone is indexical because it infers a number, it is iconic due to likeness, and it is symbolic because it represents all types of telephones and not one specifically. Of course, the telephone and car demonstrate the unfixed nature of conventions and would be designed much differently today.

  • 14 M. Barnard, Approaches to understanding visual culture, New York: Palgrave, 2001, p. 148.
  • 15 Liska, op. cit., p. 39.

15To expand on Peirce’s theory, with symbols, the relationship between sign and object is, for the most part, arbitrary – meaning must be learned. That is, “a community of sign-users agrees that a particular sign will relate to a particular object.”14 Even though symbols are not connected by similarity (like icons) or contiguity (like indices), they “must include iconic and indexical elements at some level,”15 like the car and telephone in figure 2. Distinctively, symbols are dependant on interpretants for their meaning, indices are dependant on their objects for meaning (smoke needs fire), and icons appear to have a certain independence from their objects and interpretants (a drawing resembling a ship would exist whether or not someone interpreted it as such). Given this dependency on the interpretant, symbolic meaning (based on convention) cannot always be presumed to exist, whether it is between individuals or across cultures.

  • 16 Ibid., p. 106.

16Neurath, in fact, recognized the fluidity of conventions saying they are “dependent on their time.”16 To unpack his statement, this example will be useful. I was invited to design a sign system for a newly-built homeless shelter to aid visitors in their navigation of the facility. The audience included those who had varying degrees of education, were illiterate or had limited reading abilities, were non-native speakers, or originated from other cultural contexts. Figure 3 shows three examples from the system, all of which incorporate Neurath’s five characteristics.

Figure 3. Example of designed sign system where A is based on convention, B is modified by combining two conventions, and C is a new design.

Figure 3. Example of designed sign system where A is based on convention, B is modified by combining two conventions, and C is a new design.

(Source : Winn, p. 463)

  • 17 Winn, op. cit., p. 468.

17They represent three designs: A is based on convention, B is a modified sign based on two conventions, and C is a new design because no convention existed. When they were tested on the audience, subjects recognized the symbol for playground (A), based on convention, even though a teeter totter is not always found on every playground, and they recognized that woman and bed (B) symbolized the women’s sleeping area. But they had trouble with the chapel doors designed to symbolize the meditation room: six said chapel or church (symbolic meaning), five said doors or double doors (iconic meaning), and one said outside (symbolic meaning). Given that signs must be self-explanatory, and half the subjects missed this one’s meaning, it was discarded. Notably, the men’s bathroom symbol, a standard convention, was not understood by one of the male subjects. Because it is most often seen in conjunction with the female bathroom sign, and the bathrooms were separated in this facility, not seeing the symbols side-by-side could have led to confusion.17 What this experience suggests is that even when following all of Neurath’s design rules, symbolic meaning still dictates whether a sign is effective.

Principles of Universal Design

18The concept of universal design was taking hold in the 1950’s when the needs of the disabled began receiving attention in the design community. Yet it was Dr. Ron Mace, an architect and educator, who actually coined the term as a way to talk about design that is inclusive, for as many people as possible, regardless their station in life. In his final public presentation, he defined the term this way:

Universal design broadly defines the user. It’s a consumer market driven issue. Its focus is not specifically on people with disabilities, but all people. It actually assumes the idea, that everybody has a disability and I feel strongly that that’s the case. We all become disabled as we age and lose ability, whether we want to admit it or not… We tend to discount people who are less than what we popularly consider to be “normal.” To be “normal” is to be perfect, capable, competent, and independent. Unfortunately, designers in our society also mistakenly assume that everyone fits this definition of “normal.” This just is not the case. (author’s emphasis)

  • 18 Loc. cit., author’s emphasis.

19A bit later, he added this: “I’m not sure it’s possible to create anything that’s universally usable. It’s not that there’s a weakness in the term. We use that term because it’s the most descriptive of what the goal is.”18 Hence, the oft-used quotes around the word “universal.”

  • 19 “The Center for Universal Design: About the Center,” 2008, https://projects.ncsu.edu/design/cud/abo (...)
  • 20 “The Principles of Universal Design: Version 2.0,” 1April, 1997, https://projects.ncsu.edu/design/c (...)

20Dr. Mace founded the first Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University in 1989 and led the effort to formulate the seven principles of universal design (“The Center for Universal Design”).19 Of the seven principles, there is one that best fits visual design: simple, intuitive use. It is defined as follows: “Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level” (“The Principles of Universal Design”).20 Not coincidentally, there is an overlap here with two of ISOTYPE’s characteristics: simple and self-explanatory. When one thinks of road signs, for example, they must be simple and intuitive because drivers only have seconds to absorb the message and potentially react before the sign is gone.

The Almost Universal Language

21Horton was an early advocate of “universal” design in his prescient article, “The Almost Universal Language: Graphics for International Documents,” where he posits the following:

The explosive growth of international trade and immigration demands developing language-independent documents. More and more communicators are turning to graphics as a universal language. This naïve approach can backfire for graphics are not universal unless expressly designed as such. By relying on images shared by all and by avoiding details that confuse and offend, we can make graphics independent of verbal language and culture.

22The justification was as clear then as it is today: a rapid increase in global economics and immigration creates opportunities for a visual language that can be read by (almost) anyone.

23To bridge cultures, Horton emphasizes that communicators must be aware of the various needs of those cultures encompassing their intended audience and take them into consideration. To address this challenge, he presents a “how to” guide for communicators under these headings:

    • 21 Ibid., p. 683.

    Take reading habits into account: be aware of the culture’s reading direction because it influences how graphics, especially a sequence, are read.21

    • 22 Ibid., p. 684.
    • 23 Ibid., p. 687.

    Consider artistic conventions and expectations: avoid assumptions that conventions are universal.22 For example, colors have symbolic meanings that are culture-specific, based on convention: in China the color red is associated with joy whereas in Europe and North America it is associated with danger.23

    • 24 Ibid., p. 684.

    Allow for different learning styles and rhetorical preferences: recognize that because learning styles differ from country to country, it is important to “strive for balance between formality and informality;” keep graphics neutral by not giving them a “definite personality;” and create “multi-use” graphics that can potentially be read in multiple ways.24

    • 25 Ibid., p. 685.

    Suppress unimportant details: strive for generic graphics by providing just enough detail to make them recognizable, but not culture-specific.25

  • 26 Ibid., p. 685-690.

24In addition, Horton advises avoiding such pitfalls as initials and punctuation marks, puns and verbal analogies, mythological and religious symbols, animals, national emblems, colors, people (including cultural stereotypes, body language, and hand gestures), and provincialism because “[l]andscapes, office decor, clothing styles, climate, and even bodily features vary widely around the globe.”26 Horton offers many recommendations for using his almost universal visual language, three of which overlap with ISOTYPE: simple, generic, and self-explanatory. He also recognizes the importance of reading patterns and recommends usability testing to help communicators avoid details that “confuse and offend.”

A Shared Context

25What is the key reason these designs work? There is a shared context between the designer and the audience. Think of a wordless cartoon. What makes it funny? It is only funny when the viewer and the cartoonist are both in on the joke – the innuendo, the symbolism, the meaning is understood. What about Hewlett Packard’s wordless instructions for replacing printer cartridges? Every person attempting to make the replacement is looking at the same type of printer and cartridge as shown in the graphics. It is all contextual.

26A more vivid example cannot be found than the one Marie Neurath experienced in Africa. After her husband died in 1945, she continued his work, by then, at the Isotype Institute Ltd. at Oxford (M. Neurath). Through her travels, she made this enlightened observation.

Becoming citizens of the world we gradually recognised that our symbolism was often international for western men only. More than before I recognised this when I had to work out ways of informing the Nigerian people about health, education, agriculture, voting etc., in visual terms. Man, woman, house, plants, markets, trees… all had to be drawn in a different way to be understandable in that country. Also the approach, the speed of information, the colour scheme, the ways to catch the attention – all had to be different. What I had thought out before my departure to Nigeria was quickly discarded, and I made a new attempt. I could test my ideas in different ways : by showing something to the people in a village during my walks in the bush, by watching what happened to our posters (I saw some of them on the walls of private houses long after they had fulfilled their purpose of showing people how to register as voters) ; and, most important, I could try out the booklets in schools. It was amazing how quickly the children, and the teachers too, learned to “read” the pictures and accepted the rules ; they did this to such a degree that they could use them for their own visual statements straightaway.

27Marie Neurath learned the importance of testing her ideas on her audience, making her, arguably, an early pioneer of usability testing. Through her testing, she hoped to confirm a shared context between herself, as the designer, and the adults and children of Nigeria.

  • 27 C. Kostelnick, “Cultural adaptation and information design: Two contrasting views,” IEEE Transactio (...)

28Her discovery signals an important shift from modernism (universal design) to postmodernism (culture-focused design) in the mid to late 20th century. Where Otto Neurath thought visual language was neutral because it involved a mechanical process, the eye/brain connection, we now know that culture and history (and other factors) inform meaning. Perception does not act alone or eclipse interpretation. How then is universal design possible? In his analysis of universal and culture-focused design, Kostelnick maintains that “appropriateness depends on context – the situation, the subject, the size and complexity of the audience of users.”27

  • 28 Lupton, op. cit., p. 54.

29When comparing the three approaches, there are natural overlaps between ISOTYPE and universal design (simple and self-explanatory) as well as ISOTYPE and the almost universal language (simple, generic, and self- explanatory). The latter two approaches also recognize the importance of reading patterns. The fourth characteristic, flat, is significant in that it reflects Neurath’s belief that avoiding perspective “suggests a factual honesty… [t]he sign is simultaneously present to the eye, without imitative distortion”28 although this characteristic is not mentioned in the other two approaches. Of course, uniform, the fifth characteristic, is required when creating any sign system to show that all signs are unified.

Theory to practice

30These three approaches should inspire any number of classroom activities and larger, formal projects. I list a few suggestions here.

    • 29 J. Paoletti, Pink and blue telling the boys from the girls in America, Bloomington: Indiana Univers (...)

    Students could be asked to identify a convention that is no longer used, or one that is particularly popular, or one that might be returning to popularity and ascertain the reasons for its current status. For example, I recently discovered that pink and blue had decidedly different symbolic meanings in the U.S. in June 1918: “the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”29 Today, and for quite some time, these colors have symbolized opposite meanings in the U.S. To delve more deeply, students could write papers on the symbolic meanings of specific colors in certain cultures, tracing those meanings historically.

  • Students could be asked to think of conventions that seem fixed. An example I share with my students is the stoplight, which, in the United States, always shows colors in the same vertical order from top to bottom, or horizontal formation from left to right: red, yellow, green. Why is this? The answer: so those who are red-green colorblind can drive.

  • Students could be shown a variety of cartoons without words from different time periods, cultures, and countries, if possible, and encouraged to discuss why they might laugh at some cartoons and not others to reach the common thread: a shared context is needed.

  • Students could design wordless instructions for completing a process, like tying one’s shoes, and then test these instructions on others in the class. A subsequent discussion could address whether those in other countries might have any difficulty in following the same instructions and if adjustments would be required to make them universal.

  • Students could be tasked with designing an icon for a possible new phone app and then explaining their design choices based on the terminology outlined in this paper.

  • Students, in a larger student-led project, could design a sign system for a local company or nonprofit organization or look at existing symbol conventions found at the American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA) to identify signs not on the list and create a scenario in which such signs would be used to determine the audience. In both instances, the students would then design the signs and conduct a usability test on the designs to measure their effectiveness. When designing a sign system, it is important to incorporate existing conventions as much as possible (see fig. 3) to minimize or even eliminate the learning curve, taking care that those conventions work for everyone in the designated audience.

31Through these activities, students see how theory informs practice: it can improve their designs and provide justification for their design choices.

Conclusion

  • 30 Robert, op. cit.

32Returning to Patrick Hofmann, designer of thousands of icons for Google Maps and Google Earth, it is useful to know how he defines success: it is when the icons are released to the public and are received without notice or complaint.30 Similar to my experience, he faced a challenge when attempting to design a universal symbol for places of worship. Hofmann says,

Some of the best landmarks are places of worship because they tend to have big steeples for example and are easily recognisable. My challenge was to create one icon for a place of worship, everyone said just use a cross, but of course you can’t use a cross because then you’ll alienate synagogues and mosques.

33As an alternative,

[h]e opted for an icon that drew on common architectural features of religious houses but that was criticised for being too close to certain religions. Now, where it can, Google uses different symbols to indicate different places of worship.

34Hofmann’s experience points out the challenges of working with short forms of communication: can meaning be effectively communicated in one icon and be readily recognized and accepted?

  • 31 Op. cit., p. 183.

35In the design process, it is not about choosing either a universal or a culture-focused approach. As Hofmann’s design iterations for a place of worship reveal, being as inclusive as possible involves weighing many factors. According to Kostelnick, “neither approach can fully satisfy all the disparate demands of information design; rather, at least from a pragmatic standpoint, we have to weigh their advantages relative to the contingencies of a given design problem.”31 (op. cit., p. 183) There are indeed contingencies or situational constraints to every rhetorical choice. Whether it is with our visual designs, spoken words, written texts, or a combination, we are always choosing (consciously or unconsciously) what to put in and what to leave out of what we communicate to our various audiences. Thus, informed choice is key.

36By taking our students where they are – using short forms on a daily basis – and teaching them how to effectively replace words with images, we are sharing an invaluable skill, one with immediate and long-term impact. Ideally, they will never look at another emoji, icon, or sign system the same way again. Their new-found proficiency can help solve communication problems, a marketable skill in the global workplace, and, certainly, the creative process can enhance their cultural awareness and reinforce their understanding of how (iconic, indexical, symbolic) signs make meaning.

Notes

1 D. Robert, “Tuesday Chew: Google’s Patrick Hofmann tells us why design shouldn’t necessarily blow your socks off,” Idealog, 7 Sept. 2010, http://www.idealog.co.nz/blog/2010/09/tuesday-chew-google-user-experience-designer-patri, accessed 10 October 2018.

2 O. Neurath, International Picture Language; the First Rules of Isotype: With Isotype Pictures, London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company, 1936.

3 Ibid., p. 17.

4 Ibid., p. 18.

5 M. Neurath, “ISOTYPE,” Instructional Science, 3, New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1974, pp. 127-150.

6 E. Lupton, “Reading Isotype,” Design Issues. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1986, p. 47.

7 W. Winn, “Increasing Accessibility with a Visual Sign System : A Case Study,” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44 :4, 2014, pp. 451-471.

8 Ibid., p. 456.

9 Lupton, op. cit., p. 51.

10 Ibid., p. 54, author’s emphasis.

11 Ibid., p. 56.

12 C. Peirce, “Logic as Semiotic: The theory of Signs,” in R. Innis (ed.), Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985, p. 5.

13 J. Liszka, A general introduction to the semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996, p. 20.

14 M. Barnard, Approaches to understanding visual culture, New York: Palgrave, 2001, p. 148.

15 Liska, op. cit., p. 39.

16 Ibid., p. 106.

17 Winn, op. cit., p. 468.

18 Loc. cit., author’s emphasis.

19 “The Center for Universal Design: About the Center,” 2008, https://projects.ncsu.edu/design/cud/about_us/usronmace.htm, accessed 8 October 2018.

20 “The Principles of Universal Design: Version 2.0,” 1April, 1997, https://projects.ncsu.edu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm, accessed 8 October 2018.

21 Ibid., p. 683.

22 Ibid., p. 684.

23 Ibid., p. 687.

24 Ibid., p. 684.

25 Ibid., p. 685.

26 Ibid., p. 685-690.

27 C. Kostelnick, “Cultural adaptation and information design: Two contrasting views,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 38, 4, 1995, p. 194.

28 Lupton, op. cit., p. 54.

29 J. Paoletti, Pink and blue telling the boys from the girls in America, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012, p. 85.

30 Robert, op. cit.

31 Op. cit., p. 183.

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. Example of ISOTYPE symbols
Crédits (Source : Modley and Lowenstein, p. 25)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pur/docannexe/image/140231/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 258k
Titre Figure 2. A sample ISOTYPE chart.
Crédits (Source : Lupton 1986)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pur/docannexe/image/140231/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 60k
Titre Figure 3. Example of designed sign system where A is based on convention, B is modified by combining two conventions, and C is a new design.
Crédits (Source : Winn, p. 463)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pur/docannexe/image/140231/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 21k

Auteur

Appalachian State University, Boone, USA

© Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2019

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Acheter