Generate don’t evaluate: how can codesign benefit communication designers?

Abstract

Communication designers have historically been accused of neglecting end-user perspectives, believing designers are experts at creating inspired designs. Codesign has been applied to many design fields, however developing methods for engaging end-users have had little traction in communication design practice. In an era of end-user engagement, communication designers are left wondering how and when to include end-users in the design process and if codesign offers any benefits to project outcomes. This study trialled codesign workshops across two communication design case studies. Both studies involved non-profit contexts where designers and staff co-created communication design strategies, one for sustainable cleaning in childcare centres and the other for asthma management and awareness. The findings reveal that structured, hands-on generative toolkits conducted in small groups, sparked conversation and prompted innovative ideas whereas evaluating ideas with ranking toolkits blocked dialogue and hindered idea progression. Evaluation tooolkits based on ranking ideas created unexpected barriers to engagement, as end-users disengaged from the codesign process. I argue codesign can benefit communication design when structured hands-on generative toolkits simulate a perceived familiar environment, creating a conversational forum for ideas to flow while participants enjoy creating things with their hands.

Keywords:

• Communication design
• graphic design
• codesign
• participatory design
• case study
• toolkits

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Asthma Foundation of Victoria Australia, Bridget Gardner, the City of Yarra childcare workers and Swinburne University of Technology design students for participating in the codesign workshops; Carolyn Barnes and Deirdre Barron for their supervision of this research project; and the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive suggestions. The author would also like to thank the Swinburne writing group in particular, Flavia Marcello, for her ideas along the way. The sustainable cleaning case was conducted under ethical approval SUHREC Project 0607/15 and the asthma awareness case under SUHREC Project 2008/043.