Inaugural online book | Application Concepting Series No. 1



100 Ideas for Envisioning Powerful, Engaging, and Productive User Experiences in Knowledge Work

Download E-Book or Order Softcover Book



In addition to this website, Working through Screens
is available in several other formats:

    - Softcover print on demand books (NEW)

    - Free letter size .pdf (NEW)

    - Free large format .pdf

    - Free "Idea Cards" .pdf


View all Working through Screens Formats

Email List

Join our email list to receive updates about our publications:


Contact Our Consulting Studio

Contact Flashbulb Interaction to find out how we can help your team to better conceptualize and deliver your next application design.

E: info@FlashbulbInteraction.com
P: 206.280.3135

View Jacob Burghardt's profile on LinkedIn

Latest Studio Updates

From our FlashbulbUX Twitter feed:
  •  
Follow Flashbulb Interaction Studio Updates on Twitter



Feedback on Working through Screens?

Email us your thoughts or Twitter @FlashbulbUX

Application Envisioning idea
F10.
Symbolic Visual Languages



Symbology can be a central component of interactive applications, adding clarity and emotive style to representations of onscreen objects, interactive options, information categories, or messaging content. Product teams can envision symbolic approaches for their application concepts that meaningfully advance and extend known visual languages.






Examples from three knowledge work domains:
(Illustrated above) A scientist navigates a visualization in her analysis application that displays the results of a clinical study as they relate to known functional pathways of human biology. Different elements of these biological pathways are represented as specialized, interconnected, iconic symbols, which become highlighted based on their relationship to the clinical data set that she is investigating.

An architect appreciates that her new building modeling application incorporates a large selection of symbols that are conventionally used in architectural drawings, along with some potentially useful new ones.

A financial trader has customized certain tables in his trading application to include categorical icons based on a row’s contents. During stressful times in the trading day, he values how these small cues allow him to quickly interpret incoming information without scanning many specifics.
Symbolic visual languages can range from color coding to literal iconography. These languages can serve many purposes, both within an application’s overall framework (C) and embedded within its information representations. Iconic symbols are often used to represent different varieties of interaction objects, as well as entry points to various interactive pathways, as in a conventional toolbar or menu of options (C3, C4). Non textual, symbolic cues can provide value as indicators of category (B5, B6) or as a method of communicating some types of messaging and instructional content (K2, K7, B9, G3).

Product teams can envision approaches to symbolic language that are built on both contemporary conventions in application design (L2) and specialized symbolic systems that have evolved within targeted knowledge work domains (A1). These established forms (F2) can be incorporated into products essentially as is (K3) or can serve as a foundation for further concepting (L3, L4) and styling.

Since shared interpretation of abstracted symbols is often an issue, especially across cultures (K1), supplemental information about symbolic cues may be necessary or at least recommendable (F11, K5). This supporting content may be persistently visible or made available upon demand, depending on a variety of factors, including predicted frequency of use.

When product teams do not actively consider the potential role of symbolic visual languages in their application concepts, opportunities to effectively communicate certain types of information can be lost. Without the reductive visual power of symbolic representation, knowledge workers may find some displays in resulting applications to be difficult to quickly assess and somehow uncompelling (D4).

See also: A, C8, D7, F, L




Application Envisioning questions:

What symbolic conventions are currently used in the knowledge work practices that your team is striving to mediate? While referencing these existing languages and the conventional iconographies of interactive applications, what new concepts might your team envision to symbolically communicate information and affordances in your application concepts?

More specific questions for product teams to consider:
How are symbolic visual languages currently being used in the larger professions and industries that your team is targeting?

What symbologies are targeted individuals familiar with from interactions with other products and other life experiences?

How might your team use these known conventions as a starting point to envision meaningful and branded symbolic visual languages in your application concepts?

What larger design trends and advanced analogies to other domains could influence your ideas about how symbology could take shape in your computing tool?

Where could symbolic information representation be an effective means of design communication in your team’s functionality concepts and information representations? What clarifying and enhancing value could symbols provide in various situations?

What information rich and real estate constrained functional areas could benefit from iconic communication of application content? How might perceptually salient cues call out important information?

Where could symbolic representations improve the interpretation of instructions and textual descriptions?

How might your requirements for learnability in various functional areas influence your decisions about where to apply meaningful symbolic cues?

How might your team’s design responses for symbolic languages relate to your ideas about illustrative content?

How might your team envision the symbolic communication in your application concepts as an overall system that is a complementary element of a larger aesthetic direction and brand?

What are the demographics in your targeted markets? How might your concepts for symbolic content be interpreted by different cultural audiences?

Do you have enough information to usefully answer these and other envisioning questions? What additional research, problem space models, and design concepting could valuably inform your team’s application envisioning efforts?


< PREVIOUS PAGE  |  NEXT PAGE >



Back to top  |  View Table of Contents

All original contents of Working through Screens online book are subject to
the creative commons license (Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) unless otherwise noted.
Please attribute the work to “Jacob Burghardt / FLASHBULB INTERACTION Consultancy.”