One of the most powerful ways that we make sense of complex documents like this is by PLACEMENT of elements.
We treat things close together as RELATED.
⭕⭕
⭕
We think the first two circles are related because they are close left to right. 2/10
But now...
⭕ ⭕
⭕
We think the two left circles are related because they are close up and down. 3/10
The effect of placing two text blocks close together is VERY strong. 💪 It influences how we think about the order to read things.
In this poster, I'm not sure the cues the poster is sending about reading order are super clear. 4/10
The poster's center has six "blocks" of text and images: three across, two down.
The text in the top CENTER block ⬆ is closest to the text in the top RIGHT block. ↗ Top right block is closest to bottom right. ↘
5/10
But that order leaves out the bottom left ↙ and bottom center ⬇!
The heading ties bottom left ↙ and bottom center ⬇ go together, so maybe I am supposed to zig zag? 6/10
But when I go in and try to make sense of the text, I think I am supposed to read across in ROWS.
We also expect consistency! The rightmost section of the poster, "Why it matters" is a column, which also adds to the "Which way to go" ambiguity. 7/10
When you're in the thick of creating a bog document like this, it's easy to think the logical order of the words will dictate reading order.
But we see the larger context - the "blocks" of text and images - LONG before we ever get to sentences or words. 8/10
I want to try to articulate ideas that have been running around in my head this week about
how often we treat good #SciComm as an individual problem
instead of a systemic problem. 🧵 1/15
I just released a book that mostly focuses on helping scientists - particularly early career researchers - be better communicators using the poster medium.
I think that's a pretty classic #SciComm concern. "Here's help with your skills!" 2/15
In retrospect, I'm glad I wrote a section for conference organizers.
Earlier this week, I live tweeted a webinar that reminded us how many design (and communication) decisions are made by a few people with power.
If you believe the circular bar chart is good, why put the same data in a table, too?
Why not just have the "second dose" 💉💉 data in the table?
Or make another circular bar chart ⚪📊 for the second dose data? 2/5
The colour scheme seems completely arbitrary. Different colours represent anywhere from a 1% difference in "first dose" 💉 percentages (people in their 70s vs. people 80 and older) to a 16% difference (people 18-29 vs. younger teens). 3/5
On my workout this morning, I heard my instructor talk about yawning 🥱 and saying it was because "brain 🧠 needs oxygen".
My understanding is that best current hypothesis is that yawning cools 🥶 the brain. E.g., frontiersin.org/articles/10.33… 1/4
Nuance alert! Yawning 🥱 could be multifunctional, and have physiological and social roles that influence its frequency. 2/4
This reminded me that Wiki has a list of common misconceptions (though yawning isn't on it): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c… I think every time I go through it I learn at least one 1️⃣ new thing! 3/4