So I’m an information designer with a quantitative background who doesn’t care that much about charts and graphs.
I used to to care a lot, and you will find some guidance on this site about chart design (this blog has been going since 2010 which is over half of my professional career). But over time I’ve come to the conclusion that better charts and graphs don’t matter if a resource is never even opened or read. And very few people ever see or read the vast majority of our resources.
What is a broken resource?
I define a broken resource as a report, guide, toolkit, course, ebook, or other resource that just does not reach its target audience or audiences in a meaningful way.
My perspective. The collective wisdom about why these resources don’t reach their audiences is flawed and based mostly on assumptions.
- What we see. A resource is really long.
- What we assume. The resource needs to be shorter if we want it to reach an audience.
- What we see. The charts are ugly.
- What we assume. The charts need to be better if we want to reach an audience.
- What we see. The resource is poorly organized.
- What we assume. The overall design need to be better if we want to reach an audience.
- What we see. The resource is too technical.
- What we assume. The resource needs to be simpler if we want to reach an audience.
What I’ve discovered over the last 20+ years as a researcher, evaluator, and designer, is that all the stuff we see as being wrong are really just symptoms. And our treatments for those symptoms are kind of like filters on a cigarette. They look positive, but they don’t actually fix the underlying problem.
The real problem behind most broken resources.
To understand the problem you have to understand the research and evaluation process.
For most data folk, a report is not just a communication tool. It doesn’t just get written after the project is done. The report is actually the backbone of the research and evaluation process. It starts being written at the proposal stage when we outline methods. Even if it’s not technically called a report at this stage, all this stuff is usually documented in Microsoft Word.
The writing continues as we monitor data collection and then start compiling results. We don’t come up with analyses and recommendations then go add them to the report. We come up with analyses and recommendations at the same time as we write. Then when the project is close to the end, we PDF our Word document and send it along.
In other words. We think as we write and write as we think. And the result is a PDF we call a “report.”
This PDF is NOT really a report.
It wasn’t created for an audience exactly. It was created as we thought through the project and what we should share with our audience. It usually has a very consistent basic structure that is logical for a systematic study, but not for a presentation.
The PDF is a thinking artifact. You can also call it project documentation or the technical report. It’s not a good presentation of your work for most audiences.
But most people don’t think of it that way. They instead share that PDF with their client. The client then might say back, this is too long, too technical, too wordy, and the charts need work.
For the researcher or evaluator this might feel like an attack not on the report, but on their actual thinking. They are picking apart how you process the information behind the report and asking you to cut a lot of it away.
The same goes for most other learning resources and frameworks.
We often create toolkits and guides with the same approach as an annual report. It’s written collectively in Word with comments and track changes. This produces a resource that reflects the thinking of the subject matter experts. Because most of these people are highly educated and academically trained, the resulting resource will feel more like a journal article than a good presentation.
Common symptoms of a thinking artifact masquerading as a report or resource.
- No pictures. A good modern resource designed for wider audiences will be systematically illustrated. Most technical resources usually only have charts, models, and the occasional photo.
- Big words and long paragraphs. Good resources for smart audiences usually top out at a 10th-11th grade reading level. The ideal for general audiences is around 8th grade. A lot of technical resources are at a post-graduate reading level.
- Fragmented narrative. You should be able to read a good resource, start to finish. Sometimes technical reports are shortened and copyedited but leave behind seemingly disconnected fragments lacking any narrative flow.
- It’s only in PDF. Modern websites are mobile-responsive, auto-translatable, and search friendly. PDFs are none of those. But PDF is the easiest digital format for someone working inside of MS Word. It’s also usually the first choice of a graphic design team that was handed over a technical report.
The alternative resource design approach.
The alternative design approach is what I model here in my Before & After series. It’s also what I offer when working with clients.
But if you are a DiY kind of researcher or evaluator, or don’t have the budget to hire me, here is how you can baby step into better resource design. Focus on the medium first.
- Keep the original PDF. This is an artifact of your thought process and important for documentation and for anyone who actually wants see all the little technical details. Just don’t try to edit it down to something easy to present, this is a path to frustration.
- Blog your public-facing resource. Use any blogging tool. I prefer WordPress but you can also use something like Medium or Squarespace. A simple blog can reach far more people easier than any PDF. Write as a person directly to other people you hope will read your work. Always include illustrations.
- Report through email. Any email tool, Mailchimp, Kit, whatever. Start building a real tangible list with your resource target audience’s emails. You know how to email, just pretend it’s you trying to directly reach out to small group of professional colleagues. Approach it like a series.