Rule of Three

Messages from a Communication perspective tend to fit into certain patterns. One of these patterns is what I call the Rule of Three. Most oral and written messages have a beginning (introduction), middle (body), and end (conclusion). This is certainly true of speeches, of documents, and even of multimedia such as films. Since this pattern exists, people have built up an expectation for this pattern. If an oral or written message doesn't have a beginning, middle, and end, then it might be confusing for the message receiver.

Consider carefully what each of these sections is meant to achieve. The introduction 1) catches attention, 2) introduces the topic, and 3) primes the audience in what to listen for in the rest of the speech. The body gives the message disseminator a chance to elaborate on the topic introduced in the introduction. Finally, the conclusion summarizes points made in the body, and offers the take home message. If you apply these simple points to the design of oral and written messages, then your designs will be more effective.

But, what about graphics? Does the Rule of Three still hold true for them? I'd actually have to say that graphics are designed in a much different way. Graphics are more of a gestalt whole rather than a three part harmony. However, in an analysis of Australian women's magazines, Kress and van Leeuwen in Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design(1996) find that graphics are divided into left and right and top and bottom. The left side is the old, already known, established, noncontroversial information. The right side usually carries the new, problematic, contested information. The top is the ideal (what life could be like), and the bottom is the real (what life actually is). To see some examples of these, view here: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, and Page 4. I am not sure how well this distinction between old/new and ideal/real hold true for all types of graphics. However, this distinction could help you while designing ads.

The most interesting relationship is between graphics and text. What happens when one combines the two? A concept that could help us to understand this relationship comes from Barthe and the field of semiotics. In adopting a view of meaning as social construction, Barthe (1977, also see The Language of Advertising and Image-Music-Text) was well aware that graphics are subject to a wide range of interpretations. In order to limit these interpretations, we use captions to anchor the meaning to a context. Oddly enough, graphics provide us with concrete (visual) information that makes text easier to understand. And, text is necessary to clear up the meaning of graphics. Thus, text and graphics have a symbiotic relationship. Problems occur when the text and graphic carry non-complementary information. In this case, the graphic seduces attention away from the information carried in the text (see The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning). Of course, the graphic could also activate wrong prior knowledge leading to reader confusion. One must be careful when putting text and graphics together to make sure that the information carried in the text and the graphic is mutually supportive.