Is Seeing Intriguing? Practitioner Perceptions of Research Documents

Abstract

Although design practitioners have a myriad of information sources available, they often have little time to evaluate the information. The need to study visual persuasive tactics is highlighted by (1) the propensity of designers to use visual communications, (2) the availability of sources that range in validity, (3) work stressors encountered by designers, and (4) the benefits of using peer‐reviewed sources. Given these contexts, it may behoove design scholars to acknowledge the constraints and desires of their intended audience, which may include practicing interior designers. Framed by Petty and Cacioppo's Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of persuasion, this study's goal was to compare design practitioners' hedonic perceptions of empirical research documents. Thirty‐four participants completed a mixed‐method survey soliciting perceptions relative to the organizational strategies and word‐to‐image ratios of two document iterations. Responses ascertained from Likert‐type scales, heat maps, and open‐ended questions suggest that designers, at times, evaluate an information source based on the graphic quality in which it is presented. Taken together, findings from this study might provide some useful guidance for those conveying information to practitioners who are less familiar with academic literature but could benefit from the knowledge provided, thus increasing the likelihood of informed design decision‐making practices. Furthermore, the methods utilized during this inquiry might serve as a pilot for future studies in this area.

Providing Public Servants What They Need: Revealing the “Unseen” through Data Visualization

“…The human element of participating in data visualization is key (Segel and Heer ). Interactivity is believed to improve information processing and contribute to increased engagement (Grainger, Mao, and Buytaert ; Huber ; Li and Liu ; Segel and Heer ). This allows users to choose which aspects of the information to explore, which increases their enjoyment and essentially invites them to “join the process” (Huber ).…”

“…Interactivity is believed to improve information processing and contribute to increased engagement (Grainger, Mao, and Buytaert ; Huber ; Li and Liu ; Segel and Heer ). This allows users to choose which aspects of the information to explore, which increases their enjoyment and essentially invites them to “join the process” (Huber ). For example, on the autism website detailed later, viewers can choose which aspects of the data to explore and which to skim or skip all together—the depth of information is revealed based on interest.…”

“…Although text is read visually, it is processed as auditory by the brain, making text fundamentally different from graphics (Lazard and Atkinson ). Visualizations are experienced initially as a whole, and then the pieces are parsed—which is opposite from the way that text is processed by the brain (Huber ). Thus, a good visual narrative begins with an overview and then follows with manipulations to draw attention to key points (Segel and Heer ).…”

Exploring Hiring Practitioner Preferences for and Assessment Practices of Prospective Candidates

“…While literature lacks recent studies exploring the decision‐making processes of designers when making human capital decisions, studies have suggested that designers call on rapid information processes during the design process (Gray, Seifert, Yilmaz, Daly, & Gonzalez, ; Yilmaz & Seifert, ) and when reviewing information under time constraints (Huber, , , ). Given that over one in four of Huber and Pable's () hiring practitioner respondents received over 50 applicants for a typical entry‐level interior design job opening, one might infer that the time allocated to each candidate's package is relatively limited, and consequently, heuristics may factor heavily into these initial assessments.…”

Aristotelian Appeals and the Role of Candidate‐Generated Videos in Talent Assessment

“…). However, even the most logical messages remain dependent on the audience for interpretation and their persuasiveness depends on the motivation and ability of an audience to process the evidence (Petty & Cacioppo ), and the perceived attractiveness of the messenger (Chaiken ; Watkins & Johnston ) or the message itself (Huber ).…”