This is an excellent discussion of the power and influence of visual imagery – design and illustration – to change ways of thinking, morals and systems for good or for bad. No matter what your persuasion, you need to understand what’s going on. As you view this, consider how you’ve been influenced.

Video from PJTV, a division of PajamasMedia.

House Republicans' chart depicting Democrats' plan for government-run health care.

Setting aside that fact that many think the Dems’ proposed national healthcare plan is a total nightmare, the GOP chart is no sweet dream from a design standpoint.

Where do we begin? If information hierarchy is necessary to provide a “front door” into the design, the first thing we note is that there is no front door – no “first read”. As we look at this thing, where do we start? We could begin anywhere, and spend hours hopping from point to point in the design trying to decide where to go next. There’s no single element that stands up and cries out, “Here! Come this way. Follow me.” In fact, we are forced to hunt even for the chart’s title.

Every element in the layout and the amount of space in between are approximately the same size. This amount of similarity creates monotony across the visual surface. The chart is relegated to mere pattern rather than operating as a purveyor of information. It has no focal point.

The colors used are base level, highly saturated and create legibility problems for the textual content inside each box, oval or circle.

There is no exit point. Once we’ve made some sort of entry into the layout we’re stuck. We can’t get out. We’re either going to keep going around and around or become incredibly tired or crazy from our frantic maneuverings through all that clutter. When we finally extricate ourselves out of sheer exhaustion and make a swift getaway we have gained no greater understanding of what’s being communicated than when we first entered the design space.

The single redeeming element is the gray background, which sits quietly behind all the noisy chatter of the brighter elements.

The Democrats responded to the Republicans with a simpler, “questionable” chart which is less cluttered (meaning, it has a bit more white space) and takes a stab at establishing hierarchy, but communicates little:

Democrats' health chart opus

Compare these charts to another, created by the folks at The New Republic which more elegantly describes the current state of health care in the United States. It, by the way, has a front door (note the red burst at top left with the small word, you.) That’s where you enter and you know exactly where to go next. You’re given clear and distinct visual choices. This is good design: it is both aesthetically pleasing and communicates well:

The New Republic's opus applies aesthetic principles to make sense of the current US healthcare system.

From a design standpoint, if good design is our plumb line, the Republicans’ chart appears to fail. Except that it doesn’t. It actually accomplishes its purpose quite successfully in its ugly confusion. The chart is meant to be confusing, monotonous, difficult, illegible and unfriendly. Its purpose is to communicate the confusion, monotony, difficulty and inhospitality of the proposed healthcare plan its describing, and it achieves its purpose very well. It is a worthy example of what not to do if you want to create good design, and also of how some ideas are best communicated by breaking the rules of good design.

There is an online petition with the goal of creating a better world by implementing a Secretary of the Arts position among the others in the President’s Cabinet. The petition is being circulated by Jamie Austria.

When I logged on to read the petition, I found this text:

To:  President Barack Obama

Congratulations and thank you for all you do. 

Your good friend Quincy Jones said: “…next conversation I have with President Obama is to beg for a Secretary of Arts.” [November 14th 2008 WNYC interview by John Schaefer on "Soundcheck."] 

We the undersigned support Quincy Jones’ plea. Thank you.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

I’m a bit confused. What is it that The Undersigned are signing? What, exactly, are they supporting? What is the rationale behind the petition? What is the stated need for the requested Cabinet position? If this were a design brief it would fail before the project was even begun. There’s nothing to go on, here.

There’s nothing in this petition to agree with. All it seems to state is that “whatever Quincy Jones wants, I want, too”. I am not adding my name to something so vague.

The opposition petition presented by Paul Marquardt is much more reasonable. It states an actual argument, not an unsupported assertion. I will support this one, not only because I agree with it but because it really is a petition.