Breaking design principles for the sake of storytelling

Good design mirrors human behavior - this is generally true across all design disciplines. In interior design, human movement and interactions are first considered and then the space is designed around it. The same is true for urban design, where studying foot traffic helps guide city planning. In the same vein, understanding how the brain naturally processes information is the backbone of good graphic design. This is especially crucial when designing for research, data, and statistics, where the goal is to organize information accurately, and in a way that is both interesting and digestible. 

Often, the way to achieve that goal is to follow established graphic design principles. These principles mirror the natural brain process, making reading intuitive, reducing visual friction, and lightening the reader’s cognitive load. Otherwise, it’s easy for a slew of data points to be glossed over or even misunderstood.

However, data is not without context and while visual organization can highlight the important numbers, it doesn’t always show the whole picture. What’s the story, the underlying emotion, the ‘why’? You can tell people something, but how do you make them feel it?

We’ve found that sometimes, the best way is by breaking some design principles.

Design principles we've broken

Below are 3 times we went against design principles to better serve the story behind the statistics. We’ll explore the story we wanted to tell, what principle we broke, and how doing so enhanced the presented data. 

Avoid clutter

The principle: The brain instinctively seeks simplicity and order when processing information.

The instinct: Avoid visual clutter by focusing on one prominent element at a time – too many prominent elements may confuse readers or disrupt their attention. 

A graphic designer, in most cases, would opt for the minimalist route: less elements and more negative space. But while it makes information easier to digest, this approach isn’t the only choice, and is not always possible.

In this example, the research talks about seniors and driving: Do they still drive? If not, why? If yes, is it time to talk about stopping? It’s a topic full of questions and considerations. Inevitably, there’s quite a lot that we needed to include in a single infographic to tell the whole story properly.

Instead of fighting the clutter, leaning into it seemed the better option. A continuous line (the road) still guided the reader’s eyes down the page, but text and data were treated as visual ‘roadblocks’ that disrupt that line and stall the readers’ journey to the bottom of the page – just as how a lot of considerations are taken before arriving to the inevitable conversation about when seniors may need to stop driving.

Use graphics to break up long walls of text

The principle: People are often overwhelmed by text-heavy media due to a lack of visual anchors.

The instinct: Break up the text using interesting or dynamic graphics.

Recently, we designed an infographic that was data and text-heavy. Our knee-jerk reaction was to “break it up” or “make it interesting” using abstract metaphors and dynamic visuals, guided by the thought that no one would read a big block of text - too boring! But after a few iterations, we found that breaking up the data points in separate boxes to ‘make it readable’ took away from the story: Parenting is riddled with so many little tasks, and most of it are shouldered by women.

While the tree or domino metaphor might have been more visually interesting, they would have overshadowed the sheer amount of things to do, and who’s doing them. A simple list, though text-heavy and plain, showed the fact much more clearly!

Use faces to grab audience attention

The principle: People are more likely to engage with a piece of media when they see an emotive or expressive face.

The instinct: Always include people in the first slide when designing multiple slides or scenes.

Some topics are compelling enough that a simple yet poignant illustration might do the trick. In this case, the topic of online legacy after death might be uncomfortable or even distressing if paired with an image of a grief-stricken person. As much as humans engage with relatable media, we also want avoid the risk of generating intensely negative feelings.

Rather than hammering in the emotions, visually putting more focus on the digital insight aspect of the research made the topic more comfortable to read through. It also clarifies the subject of the research, which is not necessarily about death, but what happens with your digital footprint after you pass and how these are being used for memorialisation.

A balancing act

It goes without saying that the above examples are exceptions, and while they break some design principles, the graphics as a whole still follow most of them – otherwise they wouldn’t work at all! How do you know when to break a design principle? Consider a few things: 

• What is the story behind the statistic?

• Does my design enhance the story or take away from it? 

• If I break this design principle, is the overall design still coherent?

Designing for research and statistics is a balancing act. It’s important to follow branding and maintain a sleek, professional image, but you also don’t want to be so rigid as to not consider emotional impact at all. After all, the data point isn’t really the whole point, and is likely not what’s gonna grab a reader’s attention. 

Ultimately, design should enhance and clarify your research, not muddy it. Whether you achieve that by breaking design principles – or following them! – is up to you and the story you want to tell.

Author

Margaux Estonilo is a designer at MYMAVINS with years of experience working on diverse design projects from marketing to research insight communications.