Soluzione o problema?

Sono una soluzione per molte infezioni,
ee

pero usati a sproposito
possono perdere il loro potere.

Questo potrebbe essere un grande problema.

Ani CeVEAS

to harmonize the different perceptions of several section directors
relating to how the form should be. Think-aloud protocols in indi-
vidual interviews helped users to become aware of the problems
they faced on a daily basis when using the form (Figures 3 & 4).
Users normally compensate for design deficiencies without being
conscious of it. They might believe that the forms are the way they
should be, and that there is no alternative. We worked within a
general framework of empathy—empathy for users that faced
constant obstacles when filling or transcribing the form.

Surprisingly, the form had been in use for fifteen years before
we came to work on it. While it is normally very difficult to get
quality time from users such as doctors, particularly in Italy where
there is a sense of self-importance in the profession that makes
most of them unreachable, we were able to do so. We think this
was so partly because they discovered through the think-aloud
exercise that there were indeed problems with the form, and partly
because they had not been responsible for its development. In
other circumstances, when meeting other section directors and
asking them about the quality of the forms in their department,
every one said they were very good, with some indicating that they
themselves had created them.

EXAMPLE 2: ANTIBIOTIC ABUSE CAMPAIGN

In 2011, we were called to improve the visual details of a brochure
aimed at reducing the abuse of antibiotics, a recognized hazard
all over Europe. Their call was the beginning of a problem, asa
conflict of assumptions emerged: they expected us to realize their
ideas, and we expected to be active members in the conception of
the campaign including user interviews, prototype evaluations and
interdisciplinary work, and at all other stages of the development
of the project, including its implementation.

Our client consisted of seven people from different health
disciplines—epidemiology, pneumology, clinical pharmacology,

ABOVE, FIGURE 5
A poster showing the key slogan “Antibiotics: solution
or problem?” Conspicuity, based on a visual analysis
of competing posters and legibility, based on reading
distances in pharmacies and waiting rooms, guided
the design of the poster.

infectology, and medicine—in a government agency that evalu-
ates health services in a region of Italy. In addition to the health
specialists, there was a person dedicated to crafting the agency’s
communications. We somehow inherited an internal conflict over
ownership of the project that included defensiveness about each
person’s discipline.

One of the members did not want to attack antibiotics, and
required the message to be dual: something like “antibiotics are
good for this and that, but they can be bad ifnot used properly.”
Although we did not manage to eliminate the positive aspect of
the message completely, we were able to reduce its importance to
a minimum at the final stage. This compromise was achieved at
the final meeting before going to production when we managed
to persuade the group using arguments based on evidence about
the negative effects of presenting ambiguous messages in health
communications.

Instead of adhering to the prototype the client gave us, we made
a substantially different and well-argued proposal for the text and
visual structure. Our proposed brochure was conceived of as a
tool that would facilitate communication between a doctor and
patient about when to use antibiotics; it included three scenarios
and also room for a doctor’s prescription and indications. It was
complemented by two additional pieces: a pocket size brochure,
and a poster in two sizes, tabloid and double tabloid (Figure 5).
Collaboration on the project happened at different levels: a) the
clients proposed a brochure, b) we presented a counter proposal
that, in the main, was accepted and c) they provided accurate
information for the content of the text and an entry to the family
physicians and pharmacists, who were key players in the campaign.

The clients did not want to move forward without all mem-
bers’ consent. To achieve this, we developed five prototypes of
the main image for the project, and evaluated the prototypes with
users. This helped the client group to achieve consensus, though
they ultimately chose the users’ second choice, as it was, in the
clients’ judgment, better. Flexibility and resilience were essential
for everybody involved in this project.

It was our conception of design as a collaborative enterprise
that allowed the group to move forward and obtain, in the end,

a statistically significant reduction in the use of antibiotics. On
our own, we could not have achieved the results the campaign
obtained. We believe that the client could not have, either. The
collaboration was not as comprehensive as it could have been,
but given established roles within the culture, it was successful,
and all parties were happy with the results. The agency provided
us with accurate factual content and their understanding of the
local situation around antibiotics use, and identified and worked
with the gatekeepers. We provided our communication design
expertise using a user-centered, evidence-based and results-
oriented approach.

CONCLUSION: DESIGN AS COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE

Every design problem is situated, and never exactly repeats the
problems one has faced before. Every project involves different
people, different purposes, different resources, and different
environments that must be understood. However different, every
project shares the same goal: the improved welfare of people.
Identifying what information one has to acquire, how to acquire
it, and the people one needs to work with are the first steps toward
developing a responsible design project. Designing is not only a
technical profession: one also requires social skills, awareness
of cultural values, and an empathetic framework to design with
others in a collectively intelligent way. @