Some time ago I watched a PBS Frontline documentary called the Card Game. It is an interesting program to see how creative bankers design complex credit card services that seem very attractive, but with hidden and expensive fees. I receive offers of these kind 2 or 3 times a week.

The consequences of these now popular practices are related to the recent financial outbreak in United States. This is an example of service design that instead of satisfying human needs, take advantage of them to enhance the profits. The old model of banking charged fees for use of services and interests for credit services. At the end of the 20th century the business model turned into free use of services and zero percent interest (at least in the first year of service) but with drastic penalties for overdraft and late payments.

An essential element of this model has been the creation of visual messages consisting of high hierarchy information of the free services and the low hierarchy information of the severe penalties. Then, this visual information uses the principles of human-centered design for profits instead of human needs. There are more vulnerable populations such as functional illiterates that more usually do not process low hierarchy information and make more mistakes tracking money balances. Indeed, people that do not control well their balances pay the fees that keep the system viable.

This case allows an understanding of critical challenges for visual communication designers in satisfying human needs. Human-centered design can be a fallacy in visual communication design where the client need usually is more about hiding rather than displaying clear information.

If you ask a designer which part of this visual information has the highest visual hierarchy, probably he or she would say that the number “51″ and text “Monday through Friday”. According to visual hierarchy design principle size, contrast and position define the order of visualization. However, designers always see through designers’ glasses; real world interactions are different. In a brochure with 3 tables like this above (Monday-Friday, Saturday and Sunday) I have asked people to find Saturday schedule and write down a departure time to arrive at 2pm to a destination.  Most of them focus on time tables and have written Monday-Friday time and then they realize later of the mistake correcting the answer. Some people even realize the mistake.

This means that a given goal changes the visual hierarchy principle. This issue leads me to think that visual hierarchy might be not a principle at all because people in real world interactions, that usually have a goal to achieve, definitely is not to see how the design manages contrast, size and position. I have found myself missing tittles or subtitles when I read journals, books, websites and so on. So, design research has a lot to do to study the traditional design principles that have been established for so long in the design schools.

PS A final thought: should high hierarchy information be part of details and pop up from them?