The Global Language: Using Symbols and Icons When Delivering Technical Content

By Alan J. Porter | Senior Member

Perhaps the greatest advantage offered by the Internet and the World Wide Web today is the fact that it is truly “world wide” and opens up an unprecedented international marketplace for the delivery of goods and services. Small companies can now sell into marketplaces never dreamed of before, while large multinational companies can streamline their internal communications, and cross-border and cross-cultural cooperation has become a reality. However, the global marketplace also raises a fundamental issue—that of global communication.

Global communication suggests a common language that is understood by all who use the information being delivered. It is still a frequent misconception that the dominant language on the Web is English and that it is the de facto language of business. This stems from the early days of Internet growth, which was primarily based within the United States, but was quickly overtaken by other cultures, especially in Asia and the Pacific Rim.

According to Internet World Stats (www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm), while English is still the most popular language on the Web (but only just—Chinese is close behind), it represents only 42% of all websites. On a global scale, English is also in decline as a spoken language. The spoken language with the largest numbers of users is Chinese. As a written language, Chinese relies not on abstract symbols (letters), but on ideograms, or pictorial representations of ideas. Perhaps this is where the answer to a global language lies: in pictures.

In Understanding Comics (Kitchen Sink, 1993), Scott McCloud, a leading theoretician on using graphics to communicate, points out that “pictures are received information. We need no formal education to get the message. The message is instantaneous. Writing is perceived, it takes time and specialized knowledge to decode the abstract symbols of language.” But the design and thought process of delivering graphical information, especially complex technical information, is far from simple. A badly designed graphic can be as ineffective at delivering information as text written in a foreign language. An approach to resolving this problem is through the use of symbols and icons.

In the twenty-first century, it may be that visual iconography will finally help us realize a form of universal communication.

As shown in Table 1, the use of pictures as a way to communicate predates the written word by several thousand years.

Figure 1. Aircraft Technical Illustration, circa 1950

Table 1. Key Events in the Development of Early Communication

But even after the invention of the alphabet and a written language, graphics remained the primary mode of communication to the general population, as the common literacy that we take for granted is a twentieth-century phenomenon largely confined to socially and technologically advanced nations.

More people use pictures to communicate than any other form of language, especially when trying to communicate across cultural borders. For example, the Egyptian tomb paintings of 32,000 years ago are largely understandable today. This is one form of communication that does not have a “legacy” problem.

As the use of pictures has developed over the centuries, many complex ideas have come to be represented in the form of simple icons or symbols. In fact, the simpler the iconic representation, the easier it is to understand and remember. Cognitive research has shown that memory for simple pictures tends to be better than memory for words (see Karen A. Schriver’s Dynamics in Document Design, 1996).

Representational Graphics

Representational graphics are perhaps the most common form of delivering complex technical information, from the simple assembly instructions for flat-pack furniture to maintenance information for something as complex as an aircraft.

One problem with representational graphics is too much detail, causing the essential message that is being communicated to be easily lost. As McCloud notes, “realism can make you too aware of the messenger to take any notice of the message.” When we react to an image, we need to be able to move it from the physical “outside world” into our own consciousness as a “concept” or idea. By de-emphasizing the appearance of the physical world in favor of the idea of form, a graphic can place itself in the world of concepts and, as a result, carry its message much more effectively. By emphasizing the concepts of objects over their physical appearance, much has to be omitted.

In the case of maintenance documentation, this simplification is a trend that has developed over the past few decades. Compare Figures 1 and 2, showing two aircraft maintenance illustrations produced 40 years apart.

Originally driven by productivity and early computer storage requirements, this move toward simpler forms has also had the effect of moving the complex technical illustration toward an iconic form that can be easily understood and used by a large audience.

Figure 2. Aircraft Technical Illustration, circa 1990

Iconic Abstraction

There is a famous painting by the Belgian artist René Magritte entitled “The Treachery of Images” (see Figure 3). It features a representation of a pipe against a plain background with the wording “Ceci n’est pas une pipe.” (“This is not a pipe.”) below it.

Figure 3. “The Treachery of Images”

If you think about the figure above, you will see that it is truly not a pipe, it is a painting of a pipe. In fact, to be accurate it is print of a scanned image of a black and white pen and ink drawing of a painting of a pipe! The point is that this rationale can be applied to any image, where a series of lines (simple or complex) can be used to represent an object. This is the basic definition of an icon. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines an icon as “an image analogous to the thing that it represents.”

As the resemblance of the icon to the real object varies, so does the iconic content. In other words, some pictures are more iconic than others. The fewer the lines that an icon uses to describe an object, the more versions of that object it can be used to describe. If we take the progression of the human face from photograph to the familiar smiley icon (as shown in Figure 4), we can see how it progresses from depicting one individual to depicting anybody.

Figure 4. Iconic Progression (McCloud, Understanding Comics)

Joel Katz, quoted in Richard S. Wurman’s The Information Architects (Graphics, 1996), wrote that “the best way to show how something works is not necessarily to show what it looks like.” When an image is abstracted into an iconic form, the emphasis should not be on eliminating detail but on focusing on specific details so that the essential meaning can be amplified in a way that is not possible with representational art. Termed “iconic abstraction,” this approach can be very useful for communicating complex ideas through the shared language of graphics. For example, many icons such as the ones on your computer screen are common enough that none of them require explanation. Such icons, once they become part of the common visual language, often stay in use well beyond the item of process that first defined them; for instance, the “Save” icon on a computer is a diskette, when we no longer use that media.

Over time, we come to recognize a surprising number of icons that can be readily used to communicate information. Nigel Holme, also quoted in Wurman’s The Information Architects, has said: “Everyone has the shape of familiar icons in their minds already. The key to understanding the information is to get people to picture the graphic for themselves; they see a new piece of information in relation to something they already know. Sometimes the best infographics can be just the idea of it.”

The simpler the icon, the easier it can be to remember and understand, and the more things it can be used to represent. A well-designed icon needs to use semantic rendering (e.g., color, placement) to make its meaning specific to the content. New or unfamiliar icons should be double-signaled through the use of both color and minimal text.

What has been described so far covers the representation of objects through simplified graphics, or icons. While the simple mapping of items to icons is possible, it is harder and may not even be possible to describe a system of icons capable of expressing all the notions and ideas that can be expressed in words. But while ideas can be difficult to convey unambiguously graphically, a certain type of icon can be used to express ideas, in which case they are referred to as symbols.

Symbolic Usage

Nothing is as condensed and packed with information as an understood symbol. A reasonable explanation would require a volume of words to make clear what a symbol can evoke in a moment. A symbol can be defined, according to the OED, as “a material object used to represent something abstract.” In terms of technical communication, a symbol can be considered an image used to represent concepts, ideas, or actions. Our lives are structured around symbols and, as with popular icons, their meanings can be immediately understood. Symbols such as the play arrow or two vertical bars for “pause” are immediately understood due to a familiarity with audio/video recording and playback devices over several decades, from tapes to cassettes to CDs to MP3 players, from VCRs to DVD players, and now online streaming media.

When used together, symbols are a very powerful way of orchestrating meaning through graphics, as with A/V controls, which allow the operation of a diverse family of products and processes through simple push buttons. However, symbols, far more than icons, are culturally and context dependant. Be aware of this when preparing information to be used outside of a shared environment. For instance, the sign of a dove in many cultures signifies peace, but in other cultures is seen as a symbol of conflict.

Producing a Technical Graphic

None of the techniques described above are powerful enough to produce a usable technical graphic when applied in isolation. To effectively produce and communicate technical information through the use of graphics requires a combination of all three techniques.

Figure 5, from an aircraft engine systems manual, shows how a combination of representational graphics, iconic abstraction, and symbols can be used to describe a complex piece of equipment.

Figure 5. Extract from Modern Aircraft Engine Systems Illustration

The small illustration of the engine serves as a locator device and, by employing a degree of iconic abstraction, it emphasizes and locates the system that is under review. A combination of text and arrows shows the area of the engine that will be affected by the system under review.

Iconic abstraction is also employed to show the logical arrangement (but not the actual location) of the pipes carrying fluids. This is connected to a purely symbolic representation of the logic circuit that controls this system.

At the bottom of the page, the logic circuit leads to two clear realistic representations of the control buttons on the cockpit overhead panel, indicating both location and labeling. On the right, the circuit ends with the symbol of a loudspeaker to indicate an aural warning will be activated.

The use of graphical elements can be very powerful in describing technical concepts; however, when delivering these graphics over a medium such as the Web, there are a number of design issues that need to be considered.

Technical Data on the Web

According to Schriver, “When document designers focus their energies on technological issues for organizing and displaying information without first figuring out how it will be experienced by the user, they increase the possibility of information that is disjointed and harder to understand.” In other words, the first thing that must be done in designing technical information is to understand the audience and define the end user. This is not necessarily the person who defined the project, but the actual person who will use the information to do their work.

Understanding the user is key. Research cited by Don Moyer in Wurman’s The Information Architects has shown that most users have the same six basic requirements:

1. “Tell me everything I need to know in one place.” = a single source of information.

2. “Give me pictures, diagrams, and graphics without long text explanations.” = visual information design.

3. “Make it hard to make mistakes.” = a safety net.

4. “Make it clear where I am and what I need to do next.” = landmarks and navigation.

5. “Give me a streamlined path once I become an expert.” = separate novice/expert tracks.

6. “Keep the same information structure.” = consistency.

Note that the second-most voiced request is for visual information rather than text. This is where the conflict between designer and user is most often found in the styles and types of visual information displayed. Because of their access to computers, designers often make prettier pie charts in millions of colors floating in 3D space against some strange ethereal backdrop. Each of these design decisions has made the information less understandable. If you are not careful, the information designer can easily become more interested in the creation and delivery of technology than in the central message he is trying to communicate.

Making sense of complex technical graphics requires some knowledge. Compared to prose, graphics place fewer constraints on how users read them, allowing knowledgeable searchers to find what they are looking for quickly. Conversely, complex graphics may pose difficult problems for nonexpert users. In such cases, supplementary graphics/icons/symbols (locators, arrows, etc.) may be required.

It is also important to use standard frames of reference wherever possible, including standard ways of displaying intelligence in the graphic, such as hotspot links or animation commands. When designing graphics to describe a sequence of actions for training or maintenance purposes, the sequence in which they are represented becomes crucial, as the order in which people interpret visual instructions can shape their understanding and leave them with preconceived ideas of what is being communicated. Designers must guide users through the use of space, proximity, and clarity of image.

McCloud has said, “Communication is only effective when we understand the forms that communication can take.” This statement best summarizes the basic message of this article: underlying all talk of technique or technology is the essential goal of communicating a message through an easily understood medium—graphical communication.

The focus should not be on discussions about tools and technology, but on producing information that moves across boundaries. The central focus should be on creating meaning from visual content, working with the principle that the more complex the information, the simpler the visual solution needs to be.

This is encapsulated by visual information design guru Edward Tufte in The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (Graphic Press, 1983), who states his three principles of graphical excellence as:

• Graphical excellence is the well-designed presentation of interesting data.

• Graphical excellence consists of complex ideas communicated with clarity, precision, and efficiency.

• Graphical excellence is that which gives the viewer the greatest number of ideas in the shortest time with the least ink in the smallest space.

Alan J. Porter is a senior digital publish consultant at PTC-Arborext. He has 20-plus years’ experience in corporate communications, marketing, and content development in both the UK and the United States. He has been involved in the development and adoption of various industry standards and is a regular speaker at industry conferences. He is also a published author with several books, comics, and numerous magazine articles to his name. He blogs about the many facets of digital publishing at http://thecontentpool.com.