Data Visualization, Accessibility and Graphicacy: A Qualitative

Study of Communicative Artifacts through SUS Questionnaire

Alessio Caccamo

Department of Planning, Design, Technology of Architecture, Sapienza, University of Rome, Italy

Keywords: Data Visualization, Usability, Graphicacy, SUS Questionnaire, Information Design.

Abstract: The study presented here examines the accessibility of information conveyed through the language of

infographics, analyzing the usability by users in the fruition of information content of five Data Visualization

artifacts, selected according to the degree of iconicity of representation by Anceschi. Specifically, the study

compared the SUS evaluation by two groups [F=100 – M=100] homogeneous in educational grade and age

but distinguished in owning proven Visual Design competence or not. It is therefore investigated, whether

basic soft skill, is sufficient to achieve an optimal level of accessibility or rather, whether Graphicacy

competence is discriminated. Therefore, understanding whether infographic language could be considered ad

a universal language or no. A three–variable correlation design was therefore constructed: two independent

variables, the System Usability Scale (SUS) along with the degree of iconicity of the representation, and one

dependent variable, namely the amount of information extracted from the infographic. The results show that

in both Group A and B is evident a general difficulty in accessibility of information correlated to the degree

of iconicity of the infographic representation. Specifically, in “non designer” group, no infographics achieved

the minimum usability rating, which, on the other hand, in “designer” group, is achieved by the only two

artifacts with a medium/low degree of iconicity. From the analysis of the data, Graphicacy – acquired within

the educational curriculum of Designers – would appear to be a determinate element in the correct decoding

of communicative artifacts. The contribution, through existing data and literature, leads, on the one hand, to

confirm that Graphicacy has been found to be neglected in comparison to Literacy, Numeracy, and Articulacy

and that the complexity and sophistication of infoaesthetic may be incomprehensible without timely data

visualization literacy.

1 INTRODUCTION

Historically, it were Balchin and Coleman (1966)

who coined the term Graphicacy referring to the

skills of orientation, comprehension and use of

cartography for educational purposes. The scholars

point out that activities related to the consumption of

cartographic artifacts are only possible provided

knowledge of visual codes, and the ability to orient

with respect to canonical systems of visual

representation, which cannot be conveyed solely

using written language or by simple numbers such as

coordinates. Wilmot (1999) through his own studies

in South Africa, takes up the research of Balchin and

Coleman and affirms the need and urgency to

establish curricula related to the teaching of

Graphicacy within all educational systems. Wilmot

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2045-6385

states how this skill should be considered the 'Four

R's' within each individual child's basic cultural

background, alongside the skills of Articulacy,

Numeracy, and Literacy, as "encountering visual

representations, such as infographics, matrices, maps,

logos, diagrams, word clouds, and icons, on a daily

basis, require symbolic language" to translate

concepts into "spatial relationships" (Wilmot, 1999,

p. 91). In these terms, Graphicacy represents a

competence that combines mathematical, textual,

media, technological and graphic skills; additionally,

Graphicacy is the competence related to

infographic language skills. An infographic literate

citizen therefore can read and write through the

language of graphs, mastering its grammar and using

it critically to shape and form. Such interaction is

further referred to as the "language of Design" by

422

Caccamo, A.

Data Visualization, Accessibility and Graphicacy: A Qualitative Study of Communicative Artifacts through SUS Questionnaire.

DOI: 10.5220/0011587700003318

In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies (WEBIST 2022), pages 422-430

ISBN: 978-989-758-613-2; ISSN: 2184-3252

Schön (1983). In this regard, a study conducted by

Culbertson and Powers (1959) examined various

types of graphs and tried to detect the effectiveness of

correlations between Graphicacy and other skills,

such as verbal skills. So, can we argue about an innate

competence?

Infographics has be able to communicate complex

topics in a quickly, simply, and easily way to be

understood by a wide audience (Tufte, 1982/2001)

due to the visual nature of their representation, which

should allow them to "communicate more

immediately than other systems (primarily writing)"

(Falcinelli, 2014, p. 148). In order to achieve this

goal, accessibility of information is crucial.

Paraphrasing Dieter Ramhs' concept of the usability

of good Design (Kirk, 2019), a Data Visualization

product must meet certain criteria: functional,

psychological, and aesthetic; so, good Design – i.e. a

good visualization emphasizes the usefulness of a

product while ignoring anything that might detract

from it. To do this, certain principles of good design

can be applied that enable us to develop an artifact

that tends to be functional.

For example, Kosslyn (1989) provides a broad

framework for evaluating both graphs and diagrams

to convey information effectively, classifying the

constituents of the basic–level graph into four

components: the background, the picture, the

indicator, and the labels. In Information Design,

information accessibility is defined as the ability of

information systems to deliver services and provide

information usable, without discrimination, even by

those who due to disabilities require assistive

technologies or special configurations (Ware, 2019).

On the one hand, it has been suggested by

Lewandowsky and Spence (1989) that most graphs

are easy to interpret and Wainer (1980) for example,

argued that children at age 9, had, on average, reached

the minimum acceptable level of comprehension on

par with an adult. Ainley (2000) reported intuitive

reading of graphs among 6–year–olds as an example

of the universality of some aspects of graphical

representation capable, therefore, of decreeing a good

level of reading of diagrams and maps. Additionally,

pictures and visual artifacts in general have been

considered easier to read than prose because they do

not involve the use of words (Hittleman, 1985).

There is numerous evidence of improvements in

cognition and access to information when it is

translated through visual formats. Indeed, research in

psychology and communication has demonstrated the

benefits of nonverbal language (Dansereau and

Simpson, 2009). Nevertheless, numerous studies

have investigated the difficulties in the population in

perceiving graphs, arguing that comprehension and

aspects beyond the most obvious proportional

relationships can cause extreme difficulties (Bowen

and Roth, 2003; Preece, 1983; Bowen, Roth, and

McGinn, 1999; Åberg–Bengtsson and Ottosson,

2006). Since it is possible to consider

communicative–infographic artifacts to be part of the

broader discipline of Information Design – which

leads it to be defined as an information system (Botta,

2006) – it was decided to associate the concept of

infographic accessibility with that of digital

accessibility, according to Jakob Nielsen (1993) that

defines accessibility as a quality attribute that

assesses how user–friendly user interfaces are, i.e.

how an information is easily extracted from an

information design artifact.

2 METHODOLOGY

The study examines the accessibility of information

that is conveyed through infographic language and

specifically in five Data Journalism artifacts. The

perception and interpretation of users in the fruition

of such content is analysed. Two groups –

homogeneous in terms of educational level and age

but differ in having or not studies in the field of Visual

Communication Design – are compared. Therefore, it

is investigated whether the basic knowledge offered

by educational curricula or mere prior experience, is

sufficient to reach a good level of access to

information or on the other hand, Graphicacy skill –

theoretically more developed in the subjects of the

'Designer' Group – is discriminated in the perception,

interpretation and therefore accessibility of

information. Starting from these premises, the study

focuses on the following questions:

 Q1. Is the infographic language accessible to

all?

 Q2. Is there a correlation between the

accessibility to data visualization and the

degree of iconicity of its representation?

 Q3. Is graphical competence innate?

 Q4. Is the design education path necessary in

order to develop the graphical competence?

For the study, it was selected the System Usability

Scale (SUS) (Brooke, 1996), a one–dimensional

rating system that can assess the usability of a variety

of products or services and the most widely used

(Lewis and Sauro, 2018). According to Bangor,

Korum and Miller (2009), three aspects characterize

the success and effectiveness of this tool: (i) it

Data Visualization, Accessibility and Graphicacy: A Qualitative Study of Communicative Artifacts through SUS Questionnaire

423

consists of 10 items and is therefore easily

administered (ii); it is a royalty free questionnaire;

and (iii) it is technologically agnostic, being able to

be applied to any artifact resulting from the discipline

of Information Design. The standard version of the

SUS consists of ten items, each with five mandatory

“evaluation” from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly

Agree.". Based on research over the years, a SUS

score above 68 pt would be considered the threshold

above average for usability. For the purposes of the

study, the items were adapted – in terms – to avoid

possible misunderstanding by the study sample. The

items submitted were as follows:

 I think I would like to read this kind of

infographic frequently.

 I found the infographic unnecessarily complex.

 I found the infographic very easy to read.

 I think I would need the support of a person in

order to understand this infographic.

 I found the various graphic elements of this

infographic well integrated.

 I found inconsistencies in the graphic elements

of this infographic.

 I think most people can learn to understand this

infographic easily.

 I found the infographic very difficult to

understand.

 I felt comfortable reading the infographic.

 I needed to learn many processes before I could

read and understand the infographic.

Along with the SUS questionnaire, two specific

questions were administered about the amount of

information that could be extracted from the

infographic and their relevance.

2.1 The Usability Study

In the usability study presented, five infographics

were evaluated by a homogeneous sample of 200

university graduates [M=100 – F=100 – mean age 22

– Italian], divided into two groups according to the

criterion of certified competence. Namely:

 Group A. Graduates in other disciplines.

 Group B. Graduates in Visual Design and

related fields (i.e., product, industrial etc.).

The infographics examined were published in

Italian – and English–language newspapers (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: Selected Infographics and related Iconicity Grade.

Disclaimer: Fair use of images for research purpose.

The infographics were selected according to the

degree of iconicity of the representation, applying

Anceschi's scale of depiction (1992) from a more

properly figurative degree to an abstract one, that

WEBIST 2022 - 18th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

424

should be considered "two [extremes of] possibilities

on the level of graphic expression, not being

exclusive of each other, since the formal properties of

a graphic symbol do not prejudice the functions, in

terms of effectiveness and efficiency of linguistic

encoding, necessary to realize a written text" (Botta,

2006, p.31). The act of representation, in fact, should

be understood as an action of analysis–reduction and

synthesis–restitution: thus, accomplishing data

analysis and Data Visualization. Studies on

representation can be found in the work of De

Saussure (1916) and Peirce (1958) from the

mathematical theories of communication processes of

Shannon and Weaver (Mannori, Borello, 2007).

Anceschi, within 'The Object of Representation'

(1992), takes up the studies of Massironi and Moles,

proposing a seven–factor classification (Branzaglia,

2011) – from 1 to 7 – that was selected for the

presented study, applying the latter classification to

the communicative–infographic artifact results in the

following classification:

 Grade 1 iconicity: Photograph Retouching or

Illustrative Function.

 Grade 2 iconicity: Simplification to the stroke

or Taxonomic–descriptive function.

 Grade 3 iconicity: Technical Drawing or

Operational Function.

 Grade 4 iconicity: Normalized Construction

Diagram.

 Grade 5 iconicity: Flowchart.

 Grade 6 iconicity: Field diagram or evocative

function or hypothethesia.

 Grade 7 iconicity: Abstract art or perfect

abstraction.

2.1.1 Procedure, Design of Correlations and

Measurements

For each of these studies conducted on the individual

infographic, usability tests were conducted

individually through an online administration. No

participant was aware of those who would take the

test, and all forms of security in terms of privacy and

data protection were ensured in compliance with

GDPR regulations. The user, upon receiving the link

to the test, completes the related task – i.e.,

perception, extraction, processing, and

comprehension of information – and completes the

related assessments, highlighting the amount of

information extracted.

This study used a three–variable correlation

design: two independent variables, the System

Usability Scale (SUS), and the degree of iconicity of

the representation; and one dependent variable,

namely the amount of information extracted from the

infographic. The SUS scores were calculated using

the method developed by John Brooke (1996), while

the summary assessment according to the Lewis–

Sauro’s model (2018). For the scores related to the

amount of information extracted, the proportion of

information that each participant extracted, was

calculated on a scale from 0 to 5. For degrees of

iconicity, the 7–point scale remained unchanged.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Tables 1 and 2 provide the mean, standard deviation,

and skewness values for the SUS questionnaire

scores, and the number of information extracted from

all infographics, broken down for the two groups of

the sample. In general, in both group A and B there is

evidence of a general usability of the infographics

evaluated in relation to the degree of iconicity of their

representation. In Group A, no infographic exceeds

the minimum threshold of 68 average points.

Nevertheless, in group B, this threshold is exceeded

only by the artifact of F. Franchi and A. Cox.

Table 1: Sus Questionnaire Results – Group A.

Mean Std. D. Asym. Grade Ico-Lv

Infogr. 1 37,78

16,71

-0,39

Extracted

info

1,71

1,35

0,39

Infogr.2 45,17

21,33

1,47

Extracted

info

2,72

1,02

-0,2

Infogr.3 46,45

20,66

-0,28

Extracted

info

2,43

1,38

0,12

Infogr.4 55,68

20,8

1,59

Extracted

info

2,61

-0,15

-0,43

Infogr.5 58,02

23,97

-0,23

Extracted

info

2,87

1,66

-0,13

Data Visualization, Accessibility and Graphicacy: A Qualitative Study of Communicative Artifacts through SUS Questionnaire

425

Table 2: Sus Questionnaire Results – Group B.

Mean Std. D. Asym. Grade Ico-Lv

Infogr. 1 60,62

23,63

-0,52

Extracted info 2,95

1,61

-0,18

Infogr.2 65,32

20,80

-1,22

Extracted info 4,33

1,38

-2,10

Infogr.3 65,9

20,64

-1,12

Extracted info 3,76

1,33

-0,87

Infogr.4 69,4

18,17

-0,77

Extracted info 3,63

1,41

-0,50

Infogr.5 74,65

15.39

-1,09

Extracted info 3,75

1,32

-0,74

To verify the research questions and analyse the

scores obtained from the SUS questionnaire, the

amount of information extracted and the degree of

iconicity of the representation, it was chosen to

calculate the different correlations through the

Bravais–Pearson r coefficient.

Table 3 shows that in both Group A and B, the

average usability performance and the number of

information extracted in individual infographics

follows a significant positive progression (r12) with

values between 0.61 and 0.79.

Table 3: Correlation between Sus Questionnaire Results and

extracted information.

r 12 | SUS and Extracted

Information

Infogr. 1

Group A 0,66

Group B 0,73

Infogr. 2

Group A 0,69

Group B 0,61

Infogr. 3

Group A 0,64

Group B 0,64

Infogr. 4

Group A

0,69

Group B

0,79

Infogr. 5

Group A

0,70

Group B

0,63

Table 4: Correlation between Sus Questionnaire Results,

extracted information and grade of iconicity.

r12 r13 r23

Group A+B 0,87 -0,53

-0,29

Group A 0,82 -0,97

-0,77

Group B 0,27 0,97

-0,28

In Table 4, two highly significant data emerge.

The first is the negative correlation between SUS and

Iconicity (r13), a sign of an inversely proportional

relationship between the abstraction of the

representation and its ease of use. The second, related

to the first, shows that the tendency to extract

information from the communicative–infographic

artifact tends to be favoured by its iconicity (r23).

While in the first case we see an almost perfect

correlation – with value -0.97 on both groups – in the

second case, the range of values widens, oscillating

between -0.77 in Group A and 0.28 in Group B.

In general terms, the scores made by the two

groups show an almost linear progressive trend as the

proposed infographic acquires lower and lower levels

of iconicity. On average, Group B obtain 38 percent

higher ratings than Group A, thus suggesting how a

prior competence could be decisive in terms of

perception and understanding of the displayed

information as argued by Kosslin (1994) and Cairo

(2017). However, analysing the results of individual

infographics in detail reveals interesting findings in

order to answer the research questions posed in the

beginning.

Let us consider the Grade 7 infographic and the

Grade 3 infographic (see Table 6 and fig. 1). The first

infographic obtains, on the one hand, 37.78 pts

(Grade F) from Group A, and on the other hand, 60.30

pts (Grade D) from Group B, marking a variation of

60.8% between the two results. In the second

infographic, the SUS value obtained by the first group

is 58.02 pts (Grade D), while the second has an

average value of 74.65 pts (Grade C), marking a

positive variance of 28.7%. The percentage

difference between the two groups is a relevant

finding as there is a progressive decrease in the

performance gap, the more the degree of iconicity

tends to value of less than 5. In fact, as shown in

Table 4 the SUS values of group B go from

practically sustained increases of +60.5%

(infographic by G. Lupi) to values of +41.9 %

(infographic by N. Holmes), marking the lowest

increase value at + 24.7 % (infographic by A. Cox).

WEBIST 2022 - 18th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

426

Table 5: Group A and B - Differences between SUS results

compared.

SUS | Mean

Difference

Extracted

Infogr. 1

Group A 37,78 -

Group B

60,92

+ 60,5%

Infogr. 2

Group A

45,17 -

Group B 65,32 + 44,6 %

Infogr. 3

Group A 46,45 -

Group B

65,90 + 41,9 %

Infogr. 4

Group A

55,68 -

Group B

69,40 + 24,7 %

Infogr. 5

Group A

58,02 -

Group B

74,65 + 28,7 %

Such preliminary evidence allows us to be able to

begin discussing about question Q2, namely, whether

iconicity of representation affects the usability of

infographics. In both groups, there is an improvement

in SUS ratings as the degree of iconicity tends toward

the figurative over the abstract. Group A increases by

53.6%, Group B by 23.2%. The more sustained

increase in the first group may be since 'non–design

literate' subjects have greater difficulty in processing

abstract representations, and conversely, 'literate'

subjects have less difficulty and for that reason, more

uniform performance. On the one hand, keeping these

values in mind, it’s possible to reflect on the fact that

the performance gap tends to narrow according to the

degree of iconicity; pointing to a possible relationship

between basic graphic competence and infographic

reading ability. On the other hand, grade 6 and 7

infographics make use of a complex visual alphabet

whose grammar doesn’t seem to be intuitive, as

underlined by the large gap between the values of

60.%. In contrast, a grade 3 infographic, in addition

to being generically rated better by both groups,

shows a smaller delta of performances.

With reference to question Q1 i.e., whether

infographic language is accessible, Tables 1 and 2

provide a preliminary answer. The results of the SUS

show that the infographics submitted for testing –

except for the Holmes and Franchi artifacts evaluated

by Group B – do not, as an average score, exceed the

minimum levels of accessibility despite being in

power excellent visual artifacts. However, if we were

to make a combined average of ratings between

Group A and Group B – plausible in reflecting the

state of the art – no infographic would achieve the

minimum rating of 68 pts (the highest value would be

set at 66.3 pts for the grade 3 infographic).

The individual ratings of the two groups with

respect to the individual infographic bring out how

accessibility of information is particularly variable

within the same groups. Lupi's infographic (iconicity

grade 7) received ratings above 68 pts from 47% of

Group B and only 1% of Group A. Fragapane's

infographic, on the other hand, 13% (A), 51% (B).

Holmes' infographic, 10% (A), 59% (B). Cox's

infographic, 30% (A), 59% (B). Finally, Franchi's

infographic, 33% (A), 75% (B). Such a fluctuation

prompts one to hypothesize – answering question Q1

and Q3 – that the ability to read visual artifacts cannot

be considered an innate endowment and that

infographics themselves are not as accessible in terms

of information acquisition.

With respect to Q4, prior competence in the

discipline of Design seems to favour greater reading

ability than the performance obtained by Group A.

Basic competence in Design seems to be a crucial

factor in decoding artifacts in which language gives

the final product a representation tending toward

hypotheticalization or pure abstraction – see Lupi and

Fragapane's infographic – but nevertheless it does not

appear –from the data extracted from the study – a

transversely acquired competence that is decisive in

accessing the higher levels of information offered by

data visualization. Preliminary data in possession

point out how the competence defined as Graphicacy

acquired within the training paths of Designers, may

turn out to be a key element in the correct decoding

of communicative–infographic artifacts.

Alongside this, since infographics are the result of

a design action, a second competence relative to the

way of processing knowledge could be considered:

the Designerly way of thinking (Cross, 1982) as the

way of thinking with which the designer achieves

knowledge. According to Levin (1966), in fact, the

Designer through the application of an ordering

principle, applies his critical and creative reasoning in

the search for the missing elements to solve the design

problem. In these terms, it is the basis of problem-

solving ability. Such thinking skill is in fact related to

visual language ability (Cross, 1982). The variability

of the results obtained within the individual group and

the objectively lower ratings below the 68 pts

Data Visualization, Accessibility and Graphicacy: A Qualitative Study of Communicative Artifacts through SUS Questionnaire

427

threshold, put the attention on the fact that this skill

either (i) is not acquired correctly by the whole

population – a fact that could be confirmed by the

strong discrepancy of results between Group A and B

– or (ii) that this skill within the curricula in Design is

not perfectly consolidated in the programs – a fact

that would confirm how an average of 58.5% of the

'literate' Group can rate accessible the infographics.

Preliminary analysis of this data shows how data

visualization literacy is necessary today and that

studies on key skills to proper decoding are as

necessary as ever. It seems that Graphicacy and the

level of competence acquired through current

educational systems does not fulfil its task of

facilitating this cognitive process, probably for its

purely notionistic nature that doesn’t cover other

cognitive domine as processual or metacognitive;

therefore, it brings out the importance of the design

thinking component i.e., the Designerly way of

thinking. Since infographics are endowed with

language that only in power can become universal, it

needs more specific skills and in accordance with

Roth and McGinn (1997), a greater experiential

approach and encounter with the visualization itself,

since as with verbal languages it is constant practice

that is decisive. In addition, Designers themselves

within their course of study, address the issue of

spatial–visual configuration through the propaedeutic

course of Basic Design (Anceschi, 2011), i.e., the

foundation of training in the discipline, found in the

literature related to the Bauhaus and Ulm school

(Anceschi, 1972) as a propaedeutic course for design.

In Johannes Itten, the first to lead from 1920 the

propaedeutic course – Grundkurs – within the

Bauhaus and in Kandinsky, we can see the approach

to bias correction. In fact, the purpose of the

Grundkurs is to undertake a deconstructive course for

the removal of bias and the preparation of the student

for the foundational theories of the project, based on

the predominance of art and technique over science.

According to Itten's pedagogical model, the

exploration of sensoriality arises, as the necessary and

sufficient condition for skills and knowledge to be

acquired. Therefore, by cross–referencing the data

obtained, to the theory in the literature, it is possible

to state that the ability to "generate, retain and

manipulate abstract visual images" (Lohman, 1979, p.

188), can effectively influence the comprehension

performance of communicative–infographic artifacts

(Kozhevnikov, Thornton, 2006). Therefore, a low

level of spatial–visual skills would thus be related to

the misinterpretation of graphs.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The study conducted also raises questions regarding

the design sphere. The data held by the SUS

evaluations make one reflect on the role of the design

work of the Information Designer. If, nevertheless, on

the one hand, as stated by Tufte (1982/2001) the

purpose of infographics is to facilitate access to more

complex knowledge by configuring the artifact as an

intellectual prosthesis (Maldonado, 2005), and on the

other hand, that accessibility to information is a

fundamental criterion of good Information Design

(Cairo, 2020; Kirk, 2019; Avgerinour and Petterson,

2016; Pettersson, 2011) arises the question of a

manneristic approach to data visualization that

generates an inaccessible third–party artifact, at the

risk that communication may "resolve itself into a

self–referential process, not very useful because it

does not put itself in the shoes (i.e., in the eyes and

culture) of those who look at things with a different

background behind them, i.e., the majority of the

public" (Falcinelli, 2014 p. 16). Moreover, while

there is a clear educational need for the recipients of

such artifacts, there is also a need for debate on data

visualization in the terms of emerging criticality of

the communicative effectiveness of representation,

"shifting the centre of gravity by observing by new

means [to] somewhat lighten the deliberately

overloaded formal aspect by giving more vigour to

the content aspect" (Klee and Barison, 2011/1959

p.81). Nevertheless, this fact should be read in the

awareness of the historical condition in which we

live. The infoaesthetic dimension has now reached a

level of linguistic sophistication and innovation

(Manovich, 2016) that does not keep pace with the

population's ability to properly appreciate such

products. Using a metaphor, a parallel between the

current state of the art of Information Design with the

work of Dante Alighieri can be show, as we are facing

an unprecedented innovation of language,

anticipating a new way of shaping society (Mauri, et

al., 2019). In fact, even though the sample possessed

an undergraduate level of education, the data at hand,

and the existing literature, leads us to confirm what

McCall (Schwartz, 2018) said, namely that

Graphicacy has been neglected compared to its 'older'

siblings namely Literacy, Numeracy and Articulacy

and that the complexity and sophistication of

infoaesthetic may be incomprehensible, as regarded

by Balchin (1996). To bridge the gap between

Designer and user of the communicative–infographic

artifact it becomes necessary to invest in a systemic

and democratic educational plan that unites the

factual and conceptual dimension of Graphicacy with

WEBIST 2022 - 18th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

428

the procedural and metacognitive dimension of the

Designerly way of thinking, implementing a

pedagogical methodology that makes clear the

knowledge of the Design process (Oxman, 1999).

People today need to analyse information that is

interconnected with society and the environment and

that is continuously transmitted, remixed, and shared

(Manovich, 2005). The visual translation of data into

information makes use of a language that possesses a

specific grammar of signs and channels (Horn, 1998;

Bertin, 1967/2011). However, reading images is far

from intuitive in that understanding the message can

only occur if one is aware of the codes–such as "the

use of type; the iconographic choices and the

employment of colour [as well as] the arrangement of

the pieces of a table" (Falcinelli, 2014, p.145)

"distilled over millennia of figurative and scriptural

conventions" (Falcinelli, 2014 p.16). If proper

encoding and decoding (Cairo, 2020; Wilmot, 1999)

does not occur, communication fails (Meirelles,

2013). The issue thus described, fits into the

international debate that has developed in recent years

on the centrality of policy investment in digital

literacy and digital skills to provide citizens with

adequate cognitive tools to decode and encode

information from data (Carretero, Vuorikari and

Punie, 2017; Ferrari and Punie, 2013). The

difficulties are due – first – to a low level of what

Balchin and Coleman (1966) define as Graphicacy

and which plays a key role in the cognitive learning

process (Danos, 2018) and particularly in Data

Literacy (Jones, 2020; Cairo, 2017).

In summary, the paper – starting from the

evidence in the literature – focused on the issue of

usability and the accessibility of information when

represented through Information Design languages.

In particular, the results obtained, and the correlations

made, may confirm the trends found in the literature

on the need for visual literacy for proper decoding and

perception of displayed information. In general,

almost all the infographics under study did not meet

the minimum threshold of usability, thus opening the

reflection to two questions, in terms of competence

and design. The data lead us to hypothesize that

Graphicacy – tending to be more developed in Group

B of Designers assisted by the Designerly component

– is instrumental of achieving higher, though not

excellent, levels of usability of communicative–

infographic artifacts. This points to the need for

democratization of such skills not from a

professionalizing perspective but from a culture and

access perspective. Finally, the low level of usability

achieved by communicative–infographic artifacts

raise questions in terms of design and the proper use

of high levels of iconicity of data representation.

The scientific evidence of the low level of

acquisition of the competence of coding and decoding

visual artifacts is to be found, moreover, in the

general side-lining of the teaching of the same,

relegating it, on the one hand, to disorganized

activities detectable in educational curricula around

the world (Danos, 2018), and on the other hand, its

presence in different educational frameworks. Thus

emerges the need for a systemic design of

competence in order to offer a structured pedagogical

model of competence, and an updating of it through a

transfer of the cognitive thinking of the Designer: the

Designerly way of thinking.

REFERENCES

Åberg‐Bengtsson, L., and Ottosson, T. (2006). What lies

behind graphicacy? Relating students' results on a test

of graphically represented quantitative information to

formal academic achievement. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 43(1), 43–62.

Ainley, J. (2000). Transparency in graphs and graphing

tasks: An iterative design process. The Journal of

Mathematical Behavior, 19(3), 365–384.

Anceschi, G. (1992). L'oggetto della raffigurazione.

Milano: Etaslibri.

Avgerinour, M.D., and Pettersson, R. (2016). Teang

Reports: Information design with teang and learning in

mind. Journal of Visual Literacy, 35 (2): 253–267.

Balchin, W. G. V., and Coleman, A. M. (1966). Graphicacy

should be the fourth ace in the pack. Cartographica. In

The International Journal for Geographic Information

and Geovisualization, 3(1), 23–28.

Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., and Miller, J. T. (2008). An

empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl.

Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–

594.

Bertin, J. (2011). Semiology of Graphics. Amsterdam:

Amsterdam University Press. (1° ed. 1967).

Borello, E., and Mannori, S. (2007). Teoria e tecnica delle

comunicazioni di massa (Vol. 6). Firenze University

Press.

Botta, M. (2006). Design dell'informazione: tassonomie per

la progettazione di sistemi grafici auto–nomatici.

Valentina Trentini.

Bowen, G. M., and Roth, W. M. (2003). Graph

interpretation practices of science and education

majors. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and

Technology Education, 3(4), 499–512.

Branzaglia, C. (2011). Comunicare con le immagini.

Milano: Mondadori.

Brooke, J. (1996). Sus: a “quick and dirty’usability.

Usability evaluation in industry, 189(3).

Cairo, A. (2017). Uncertainty and graphicacy: How should

statisticians, journalists, and designers reveal

Data Visualization, Accessibility and Graphicacy: A Qualitative Study of Communicative Artifacts through SUS Questionnaire

429

uncertainty in graphics for public consumption? In

Errea, J., and G. (2017). Visual Journalism:

Infographics from the World’s Best Newsrooms and

Designers (Translation ed.). Neustadt: Gestalten.

Cairo, A. (2020). Come i grafici mentono. Capire meglio le

informazioni visive. Milano: Cortina Raffaello.

Carretero G. S., Vuorikari, R. and Punie, Y. (2017).

DigComp 2.1: The Digital Competence Framework for

Citizens with eight proficiency levels and examples of

use. EUR 28558 EN. Londra: Publications Office of the

European Union.

Cox, R., and Brna, P. (1995). Supporting the use of external

representations in problem solving: The need for

flexible learning environments. Journal of Artificial

intelligence in Education, 6, 239–302.

Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design

studies, 3(4), 221–227.

Culbertson, H. M., and Powers, R. D. (1959). A study of

graph comprehension difficulties. Audio Visual

Communication Review, 97–110.

Danos, X. (2018). Graphicacy and Culture: Refocusing on

Visual Learning. Loughborough: Design Press Ltd.

Dansereau, D. F., and Simpson, D. D. (2009). A picture is

worth a thousand words: The case for graphic

representations. Professional Psychology: Research

and Practice, 40(1), 104.

De Saussure, F. (1916). Nature of the linguistic sign.

Course in general linguistics, 1, 65–70.

Falcinelli, R. (2014). Critica portatile al visual design: da

Gutenberg ai social network: [come informano,

narrano e seducono i linguaggi che ci circondano].

Torino: Einaudi.

Hittleman, D. R. (1985). A picture is worth a thousand

words… if you know the words. Childhood Education,

62(1), 32–36.

Horn, R. E. (199). Visual Language: Global

Communication for the 21st Century. Bainbridge

Island: MacroVU.

Kirk, A. (2019). Data Visualisation: A Handbook for Data

Driven Design. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications

Ltd (1a ed. 2016).

Klee, P., and Barison, M. (2011). Teoria della forma e della

figurazione. Mimesis. (1° ed. 1959).

Kosslyn, S.M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs.

Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3.

Kosslyn, S.M. (1994). Elements of graph design. New

York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Kozhevnikov, M., and Thornton, R. (2006). Real–time data

display, spatial visualization ability, and learning force

and motion concepts. Journal of Science Education and

Technology, 15(1), 111–132.

Lewandowsky, S., and Spence, I. (1989). The perception of

statistical graphs. Sociological Methods and Research,

(2–3), 200–242.

Lewis, J. R. (1992). Psychometric evaluation of the post–

study system usability questionnaire: The PSSUQ.

Proceedings of the human factors society annual

meeting. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Lewis, J. R., and Sauro, J. (2018). Item benchmarks for the

system usability scale. Journal of Usability Studies,

13(3).

Maldonado, T. (2005). Reale e virtuale. Milano: Feltrinelli.

Manovich L. (2005). Remixability and Modularity, URL:

http://manovich.net/content/04–projects/046–remixa

bility–and–modularity/43_article_2005.pdf.

Manovich, L. (2016). Info–Aesthetics. Londra: Bloomsbury

Academic.

Mauri, M., Colombo, G., Briones, M. D. L. Á., and

Ciuccarelli, P. (2019). Teaching the critical role of

designers in the data society: the DensityDesign

approach. In Börekçi, N., Koçyıldırım, D., Korkut, F.

and Jones, D. (eds.), Insider Knowledge, DRS Learn X

Design Conference 2019, 9–12 luglio,

Meirelles, I. (2013). Design for Information: An

Introduction to the Histories, Theories, and Best

Practices Behind Effective Information Visualizations.

Londra: Rockport Publishers.

Moles, A. A. (1958). Theorie de linformation et perception

esthetique.

Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering (1st ed.).

Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann.

Oxman, R. (1999). Educating the designerly thinker.

Design studies, 20(2), 105–122.

Pettersson, R. (2011). A model for teaching information

design. Educational Technology, 12–19.

Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders

Pierce. Vols. 5 – 8. Cambridge: Belknap Press of

Harward University

Preece, J. (1983). A survey of graph interpretation and

sketching errors. Open University.

Roth, W. M., and McGinn, M. (1997). Graphing: Cognitive

ability or practice?. Science Education, 81, 91–106.

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. Londra:

Temple–Smith.

Schwartz, J. (2018). Visual literacy: academic libraries

address 21st century challenges. Reference Services

Review.

Tufte, E. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative

Information (2nd ed.). Graphics Press. (1a ed. 1982).

Wainer, H. (1980). A test of graphicacy in children. Applied

Psychological Measurement, 4(3), 331–340.

Ware, C. (2019). Information visualization: perception for

design. Burlington: Morgan Kaufmann. (1° ed. 2004).

Wilmot, P. D. (1999). Graphicacy as a form of

communication. In South African Geographical

Journal, 81(2), 91–95.

WEBIST 2022 - 18th International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies

430