IMPROVING AIGA’S PROFESSIONAL IMAGE THROUGH BALLOT DESIGN, EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH, AND 365: YEAR IN DESIGN - RECOMMENDATION REPORT

Prepared by Farrah Dang, Consultant
Report Distributed July 27, 2004

Prepared for the Board of Directors AIGA (American Institution of Graphic Artists)

 

Accompanying PowerPoint Presentation

 

 

Executive Summary and Overview

This report analyzes the top three problems which hinder AIGA’s leadership role in the field of graphic design, and the resulting solutions are based upon both the improvement of AIGA’s image and the promotion of professionalism in the field of design. This report recommends that AIGA begins focusing the majority of its public relations and lobbying efforts into the Ballot Initiative which incorporates AIGA’s current side project, Design for Democracy. The Ballot Initiative will begin as soon as this report is dispersed to the Board of Directors, at the end of July. The Ballot Initiative will help AIGA strengthen its leadership role as the promoter of good design by alleviating the blame of bad ballot design that is affixed to the scandal of the 2000 national election.

The contents of this recommendation report are titled and organized as follows:

Introduction

This report addresses and analyzes obstacles to AIGA’s current objectives – those of professionalism and a strong leadership stance in design. There is concern in the design world that the profession is in danger of illegitimacy. The field of graphic design is fracturing amidst disagreements about what defines good design and who is the real leader of good design. It is therefore in AIGA’s best interest to generate a unified and professional image, address current problems in design, and improve the professional legitimacy of graphic design. In doing so, AIGA will be better able to serve its members and extend its own influence in the professional world.

This report focuses on the top three individual problems which most threaten graphic design’s - and therefore AIGA’s - legitimacy. In choosing to concentrate efforts on the most urgent of these secondary problems, AIGA will be directly addressing the larger problems of professional legitimacy and uncertain leadership. The secondary problems presented in this report are as follows:

In order to present a more cohesive, commanding presence in the professional world, AIGA needs to act upon recommendations which address the aforementioned issues. These recommendations are as follows: formation of a coalition to take over national ballot design, a redesign of the Loop website and beginning the foundations for a national design curriculum, and finally setting a design guideline for the Year in Design publication.

In implementing a successful and well-received national ballot design, AIGA will be seen as the definitive, solid leader of graphic design. AIGA can look to similar representative organizations to see why the leadership role is so powerful. Labor and trade unions, particularly the AFL-CIO, have managed to present such a commanding and forceful presence that the mere threat of picketing will force quick action on the part of employers and the government (and if not action, then the immediate attention of the press). AIGA must adopt a similarly powerful stance in the design world.

Redesigning Loop serves as another step toward clarifying AIGA’s position as a design leader. Making the website more accessible will be helpful to those unfamiliar with AIGA yet wish to know more, and furthermore, seeing that Loop is a special AIGA supplement aimed toward educators, it is through this site that AIGA can begin advertising plans for a national, AIGA-sponsored design curriculum. Besides the obvious advantage of the strong leadership role in design that AIGA will take here, there is also the added advantage of additional publicity (as in the ballot redesign initiative) and increased AIGA membership.

Finally, the Year in Design issue needs to be addressed because the negative reviews from both members and non-members reflect badly upon AIGA as a professional organization. It damages AIGA’s credibility to have its main publication recognized for bad design.

Researching the Problems

This section of the report will focus on background research and possible solutions for each of the problematic issues concerning AIGA.

Problem One - The National Ballot

The issue of ballot design finds special context within our current government climate. Ever since the presidential election ‘nightmare’ of 2000 and its vote-recount scandal, political parties of all affiliations have admitted a need for better ballot design. The heaviest criticism targets the confusing ballot layouts which have mislead people into voting for the wrong candidates.

Spectrum, a quarterly publication dedicated to governmental issues, cites the elements lacking in contemporary ballots: simplicity, clarity, brevity, and ease of functionality for people of all demographic backgrounds. Not surprisingly, these elements are also the tenets of good graphic design. Though the topic of ballot design is political, critics will blame the ballot flaws on poor design. This negative criticism hurts graphic design’s reputation as a respectable profession, and AIGA would do well to address the situation.

AIGA has already begun campaigning for a complete redesign of the ballot. This initiative has been titled Design for Democracy, and AIGA is currently lobbying the Federal Election Commission and Congress Members for support of major redesigns of ballots and voting equipment. So far, success has been made only on the small scale – Chicago. While small, this victory is significant because of the positive PR coverage. The Washington Post, a major newspaper on the east coast, credited AIGA with reminding the public why good design is important:

"If you think about relations between citizens and government, everything depends on trust...trust depends on communication."
– AIGA’s Executive Director, Ric Grefe

At this particular AIGA convention in Chicago, mock elections between celebrities like Oprah and Jerry Springer were held to test out the new voting equipment which included a new ballot puncher that eliminates hanging-chads . AIGA also fostered new connections and familiarity with the organization through the enlisted the help of University of Illinois design students.

Despite the enthusiastic reception by both public and press, AIGA has not coordinated a similar event since that time - March of 2002. As this is July of 2004, AIGA should consider making this project a priority, immediately.

Why this option is desirable:

Besides furthering the goal of design’s legitimacy, AIGA’s relationship with the government will develop into valuable connections and further job opportunities for AIGA members as well as huge membership generation through public exposure.

Potential Actions:

Form a team of designers, preferably past AIGA medalists, and hold a conference to decide the top five or ten ballot designs, and from there AIGA will leave the final decision up to the general public via a poll on AIGA’s website.

The Contacts and Consultation Committee will first contact the members of the Federal Election Commission which coordinates the electoral ballots and the Division of Elections/State Board of Elections and County Clerks, both of which oversee voting on the local levels. The Contacts and Consultation will coordinate between these governmental departments to institute the final ballot design by 60 days before November 2nd at the latest.

The Ballot Committee will also need to coordinate with independent election companies which provide voting machines for the states . AIGA will send these companies the final ballot design by 30 days before November 2nd.

Problem Two – Lack of Educational Outreach

Loop: AIGA Journal of Interaction Design Education, an online academic journal, serves as an educational community that is developing curricula for standard design. Loop is published as a webzine that is affiliated with not only AIGA but also with Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for Design Studies. Loop’s intended audience consists of students and educators who are interested in promoting good design with AIGA’s help.

The problem here, according to outside consultants , is that Loop’s website is intimidating to the non-designer. The site’s design obscures content and will scare away potentially valuable educators who might have been willing to indoctrinate AIGA’s design principles in their respective communities. This problem damages AIGA’s credibility as an easily accessible, capable leader.

The site, while visually compelling and stylish, is difficult to navigate and lacks the intuitive layout – menu buttons, an easily accessible ‘contacts’ page - that is found in the websites of AIGA’s competitors. The most vital element missing is an ‘educational topics’ page – this is an area of opportunity that AIGA is severely overlooking. AIGA could easily use such a section on Loop to introduce the beginnings of a forum/campaign on a nationally standard design program which can then be implemented in schools.

Why is a national standard for design important for education? Research indicates that companies employing designers experience problems with their employees differing educational backgrounds. There are designers that are adequately – even superbly – trained, but there are also designers who leave their schools with no concept of the basic principles of design such as color, shape, and placement.

Why this option is desirable:

Redesigning the Loop website – making it a more accessible online educational forum – will help AIGA in the initial steps to implement a national standard of good design. Part of the reason why there is a lack of cohesion in professional graphic design is that educational institutions lack a standard curriculum/design template.

Potential Actions:

AIGA should start on the small scale with a topic as large as education, thus a redesign of Loop is recommended as the first step toward a solution of AIGA’s educational apathy. The redesign should include less technical terms, the inclusion of a section labeled “an introduction to AIGA for non-designers”, and a section that will act as the beginnings of a standardized nationwide design program. This section may be in the form of an online forum, polls, and/or op-eds submitted by educators currently involved in the graphic design world. Participation should not be limited to AIGA members. David Womack, AIGA’s Director of New Media, will need to be consulted for Loop’s changes.

Problem Three - 365: AIGA Year in Design

Year in Design is AIGA's definitive annual review of American design, a 365-page all-color reference guide that showcases the best of American design and serves as an opportunity for high exposure for AIGA members. However, problems have surfaced around the creative license that current designers are using to document the work of 365 other designers. This publication has received negative reception for two years in a row (issues 21 and 22). These are some excerpted statements by Amazon.com reviewers who are also AIGA members:

“…the text is so small as to be illegible…”
- Juliette Cezzar
“…the content it's trying to display is completely truncated, and ineffectual. As far as inspiration books go, this is definitely one of the worst books I've purchased. You can tell that there are some real gems located within, but the sad part is you only see the top corner, or little snippets. Maybe next time AIGA should focus on letting us see why the winners are in the book, instead of trying to make an artsty statement in and of itself.”
- James Q. Manning

Two years of lukewarm receptions in a row indicate a need for reassessment and new guidelines for functional, friendly design in regards to this publication.

Why this option is desirable:

This is an internal problem, meaning that it is easier to tackle than the Ballot Initiative – less money and less outside lobbying is needed to fix the Year in Design problems. It’s also especially important to fix this issue since Year in Design acts as a sort of advertisement of AIGA. The negative reviews from AIGA’s own members reveal a harmful fracture in agreement over what constitutes acceptable and good design, a fracture that threatens AIGA’s professional, unified image.

Potential Actions:

AIGA must generate a list of acceptable fonts and general cropping rule. The natural outcome will be a standard guideline which will hinder creative publishing layouts, but such a guideline will help AIGA alleviate the negativity surrounding its main publication. The Publishing and Editing Committee and the Evaluative Design Committee will need to collaborate and produce this standard template for future Year in Design publications.

Since font is such a pertinent problem, here is a suggested guideline for fonts to use (as researched by the Department of Psychology at Wichita State University ):

Recommended Action

This section of the report will revisit AIGA’s goals, problematic issues affecting those goals, and will recommend a course of action to address the most pressing issue.

AIGA’s existence relies heavily upon its commitment to establishing a professional support base for those involved in graphic design whether that person is a publisher, furniture designer, or architect. There is fracturing within the profession of graphic design, and this fracture revolves over the debate over what constitutes good, functional design. AIGA needs to assume its natural leadership stance to solve the current problems in design in order to restore solidarity.

Establishing standard design guidelines for Year in Design is a rational step toward improving AIGA’s image, and this option is especially attractive because AIGA can ‘fix’ this problem without outside help. Year in Design should show off AIGA’s solid sense of design, but with so many AIGA members citing problems with illegible fonts and overcropped documentations, AIGA looks more like a weak and fractured organization that is unsure of the meaning of good design.

Loop’s redesign is also a desirable option because the implementation of a stronger educational section will help AIGA begin a nationwide campaign for a national design curriculum. The Research section of this report cited that the lack of cohesion in the design profession is due largely to the lack of a standard curriculum. However, if Loop implements an open forum for educators and students who are not necessarily AIGA members, AIGA’s educational outreaching tactic will enjoy increasing momentum through Loop as users discuss and eventually form a consensus on the elements of good design. The redesigning of Loop is also much less costly than televised advertising and immediately lobbying schools since Loop will serve to generate much needed support for AIGA’s eventual national design curriculum campaign.

While the Loop redesign and Year in Design revamp options are valid tactics that will boost/fix AIGA’s current image and promote solidarity in the design profession, the Ballot Initiative is the first recommended course of action because of timing.

Considering the recent political controversy over the presidential election and with the next national election occurring only four months from now, AIGA needs to use the current negative public sentiment about flawed ballot design to launch the Design for Democracy campaign in full force. It is uncertain when the government and public in unison will call for ballot redesign again, so this is an opportunity of events and a chance to prove undisputed leadership in and unwavering dedication to good design that AIGA must not abandon.

There is further advantage in giving this campaign full support, right now. When AIGA wins the bid for official designer of the national ballot, national familiarity with AIGA as a respected organization will increase with every publicized election, and from there AIGA can trickle down its influence to the very local levels – such as county elections. This will generate a lot of designing jobs and publicity for AIGA members and these opportunities can serve as additional benefits to outstanding AIGA members.

Next Steps:

As stated in the Research section of this report, the first action will be the formation of a team of designers, preferably past AIGA medalists, who will then hold a special juried conference to decide the top five or ten ballot designs. From there AIGA will leave the final decision up to the general public via a poll on AIGA’s website.

A new committee – the Ballot Initiative Committee – will be formed out of present Design for Democracy members and AIGA staff members Michelle Stanek, events project manager, Gabriela Mirensky, director of competitions and exhibitions, and Amy Dorfman, the award overseer. The Ballot Initiative Committee will work correlate with the Contacts and Consultation Committee in order to make sure the final version of the ballot is ready for distribution in electronic and hard-copy format. These actions must be completed 90 days before November 2nd.

The Contacts and Consultation Committee will then contact the members of the Federal Election Commission which coordinates the electoral ballots and the Division of Elections/State Board of Elections and County Clerks, both of which oversee voting on the local levels. The Contacts and Consultation will coordinate between these governmental departments to institute the final ballot design by 60 days before November 2nd at the latest. Any changes to the ballot at this point must be minor and made before this deadline.

The Ballot Committee will then coordinate with independent election companies which provide voting machines for the states. Here is a list of the websites which have contact information for the major distributors of voting/ballot machines:

AIGA will send these companies the final ballot design by 30 days before November 2nd. These deadlines are tight but feasible if AIGA concentrates all attention to Design for Democracy right away.

References

Bernard, Michael., et al. “A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which Size and Type is Best?” Usability News 4:1 (Jan. 2002). The Software Usability Research Laboratory of Witchita State University .

Design for Democracy official website. .

Loop: AIGA Journal of Interaction Design Education official website. < http://loop.aiga.org/>.

Glasner, Joanna. “Voting Machine Leaves Paper Trail.” Wired News website. 09 May 2003 < http://www.wired.com/>.

Kunerth, Jeff and Leusner, Jim. “Some Had One from ‘column A,’ One from ‘column B’.” Orlando Sentinel 26 December 2001.

Hales, Linda. “How to Brew A Better Ballot.” Washington Post 23 Mar. 2002: C01

Heller, Steve. “What this Country Needs is a Good Five-Year Design Program.” American Institute of Graphic Arts offical website. AIGA .

Herrnson, Paul and Nieni, Richard. “Ballot design: How to improve life at the ballot box.” Spectrum 76.3: 35-39.

Mok, Clement. “Time for Change.” American Institute of Graphic Arts official website. AIGA .

Whitcomb, Jim. “Factors that Affect Readability: What Works and What Doesn’t.” Inside PageMaker 10.3 (Mar. 2004): 1-4.

Appendix

Election Companies contact list:

Consultants contacted:

Federal Election Commission members:

http://elections.gmu.edu/campaigns.htm - a reference page for homepages of election offices in all fifty U.S. states including the District of Columbia. Last accessed: July 20, 2004

Excerpt from the Linda Hale’s “How to Brew A Better Ballot.” Washington Post. ‘Chads’ - keypunch droppings; small confetti-like bits of cardboard punched out of cards. ‘Hanging chads’ – punch-out droppings that are still attached to the punched paper. See Appendix for list of members’ names See Appendix for list of Election Companies see Appendix for consultants’ contacts Heller, Steve, “What this Country Needs is a Good Five-Year Design Program.” AIGA website. See References for website address of published studies