menu
Over time our ideas evolve and change shape. When a user is first introduced to new graphics or conceptual maps they will need an onboarding phase to follow the new patterns. But we do have some common core templates and tropes that can be used as bases depending on shared experiences
A story is stronger when there is a clear focus. If too many objects are competing for attention then they all have a weak presence. In this example below, I show a dark value story with the moon focus. And a light value story, with the flower focus. But if you tried to have everything all at one, it would weaken the focus.
Von Restorff effect: Also known as perceptual salience, referring to what information is able to capture attention. This is when hierarchy is useful, so that important ideas don't have to compete with background details.
How something is framed affects what people focus on and remember. With the long shot, you can see rhythms of how the animals are laid out and where the gaps are. With the close-up, you can empathize with characters in the scene better. Feel the moment with them vs observing them all reacting to the moment as an outsider.
Both of these strategies have their strengths. if you need the audience to have a strong connection with the subject. Using close-up strategy with high contrast would help build empathy. If you don't know where the focus should be or need a more holistic perspective. Zooming out can help with exploration and pattern finding.Both techniques are vulnerable to heuristic biases
Stories are our most powerful tool to communicate ideas. Visual channels are our most potent sensory input and processing. This is why data visualization is such a powerful medium.While visualization usually invokes ideas about sight and visuals. You can also express data relationships through audio and tactile.
Charles Minard and Florence Nightingale were very good at evoking emotional impacts through graphic design. Both of these graphs encode increasing death in shape size. This was back when data was presented as very tedious tables of numbers. These graphs tell stories that humanize the meaning of those numbers.The structure of these graphs were enforced by strong design gestalt that helped focus the attention on the flow of the numbers. and the visual aesthetic helps keep the audience engaged.
There is a lot of power in science and statistics. One bad habit of misinformation is leeching of the reputation of well thought out graphic design by stilling the aesthetic. This is used a lot in scams and manipulative advertising.
For example, the newspaper clipping is using clipart of graphs to associate the idea of statistics with their narrative. This is also used when people use 'scientific' sounding words like 'quantum' to add validity to their arguments.
DNA is a nucleic acid that you can not see or hear. So, to communicate ideas about this concept we must abstract it into tangible outputs that humans can engage with. Some abstractions can cross sensory input channels.
For example, using a written script of the English language, DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid has visual symbols (the letters) tied to the concept. These symbols are also tied to audio inputs (dē, en'ā) and (dē, äksē, rībōnōō' klēik 'asid). This uses language as an audio/visual communication medium, where as mediums like American Sign Language or symbols are specialized to visual channels.
Another example, the spaced filled and chemical models can exist as both a visual medium (as below) and a tactile medium (when built as 3D models).
Abstraction comes on a multi-axis spectrum.
You can push for high metaphor and symbolism. For example, liking DNA to a cookbook to tie functionality to a relatable human practice.
Or you can push more for high reduction and shape abstraction. Like an artist pushing the visual rhythm of DNA to swirling helix's observed in the galaxy or in nature, putting emphasis on how DNA feels to observe.
Or push for more hyperrealism. This is tricky because reality can be relative to how you observe the universe. For example, the photo of DNA captured might be the most literal. But if the space filled model, that is more abstracted, better connects the audience to the subject it might feel more real because the meaning is more intimately connected to the user.
Rather than debating which is the best, focus on what idea you are trying to communicate. Use the levels of abstractions that can stand as a medium to connect your idea to the user.
Remember that the styles and design choices affect what frames the audience will experience and what they will retain. The medium is there to hold the scaffolding of that ideas as it transfer from you to the user.
The visual processing skills needed to read are very cognitive taxing. This can get in the way when reading is the means to accomplish another task. Human factor engineering principles can be used to reduce cognitive load and human failure.
As tech has dramatically evolved over the decades EHRs have fell behind. So much info is crammed into the window that it is very difficult to process.
Many people want to fix this problem but we are not there yet. For the example below, the abdominal image takes the top of the hierarchy, then the notes, then quantitative data. This design has clear UI but the hierarchy highlights information in reversed order of importance. It is really appealing to put images at the top of the hierarchy. But in this example it waste space saying nothing because clinicians don't need beginner anatomy diagrams
My original critique focused on the visual hierarchy and information density, but the core failure of these designs runs deeper: they assume a single, able-bodied method of interaction. The 'shotgun blast' of data creates a nonsensical, high-cognitive-load sequence for a screen reader user tabbing through the interface. The 'decorative image' model forces a clinician relying on a keyboard to navigate through irrelevant alt text before reaching critical patient data. This isn't just poor visual design—it's a fundamental failure to structure information in a logical, linear, and efficient way. Ironically, had the designers prioritized accessibility for blind users from the start, they would have been forced to create a more semantically structured and hierarchically sound UI. The result would have been a more usable and efficient system for every clinician, regardless of their abilities, proving that inclusive design isn't a constraint, but a pathway to better solutions for all.
Newspapers use to be very dense and tedious to read. Part of the job of newsies boys was to find stories in that 'word soup' worth buying a paper, and that is what they advertised in the streets.
Now papers are displayed by the cover and the design sells it. The hierarchy usually starts with the brand, then really intriguing headlines and quotes accompanied by images. With the attention competition of the internet, you would not be able to sell an idea with the high density of old styles.
However, this evolution from neutral density to heavy-handed design is not an unequivocal improvement. The old 'word soup,' while tedious, presented information with a neutrality that required the reader to actively engage, compare, and ultimately form their own conclusions—a process that inherently fostered critical thinking. In contrast, the modern design's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: its efficiency. By telling us exactly what to look at and what is important, it risks doing the thinking for us. This design philosophy mirrors the broader modern media ecosystem, where outlets—from cable news to YouTube sponsorships—don't just report the news but aggressively sell a perspective. Their value proposition is often that they show the 'bias' of others, yet their own design and hierarchy inevitably present a curated, persuasive argument. The modern front page doesn't just report the news; it performs it, creating a visual echo chamber that can prioritize engagement over understanding.
In this comparison, of a Yahoo homepage from Japan and US, you can see the different hierarchy ratios used in different countries. In the US, Web pages have been pushing really high contrast and lowering the density. Whereas web pages in Japan has keep to the high density low contrast ratio.
This trend to low density layout is seen in many countries. As people adjust to using low density and high contrast, it becomes harder to go back to older designs. Because it is much easier for the brain to absorb info, as UX and UI grow to support visual processing.
This comparison reveals that UI density is not merely a trend but a cultural artifact. The difference between these designs can be understood through the anthropological lens of high-context and low-context societies. The high-density, information-rich Japanese portal reflects a high-context design philosophy. It provides a vast array of options with less overt guidance, trusting the user to possess the 'backend awareness' to navigate the complexity and understand how the information fits together. In contrast, the low-density, high-contrast American portal is a classic low-context design. Its goal is maximal clarity and immediate usability, making the intended path obvious and reducing cognitive load for a user who may prefer not to invest time in learning the system's underlying structure. One is not inherently 'better' than the other; each makes a different thing easier. The Japanese design makes comprehensive exploration easier for an engaged user, while the American design makes simple, goal-oriented tasks easier for a casual user. This is why localization is not just translation—it is a deep layer of UX that respects cultural cognition and fundamentally re-architects the user's journey.
