Information Design Journal - Volume 8, Issue 1, 1995

A variety of food labelling issues are reviewed: information about manufacturers' names, quality standards and quality marks, nutritional information, health claims, advertising, additives, genetically modified organisms, pesticides, organic foods, eco-labelling and animal welfare. Some of these issues are reasonably fully reflected in food labels and others not at all. There are different possible explanations for this variation in coverage.There is little consistency of approach to labelling, and there are grounds for questioning whether food labelling is working to the benefit of consumers. Market theory requires consumers to be fully informed for the market to work. But theory and reality are ill-matched because food labelling has itself become a battleground, rather than a tool to enable the market to work. Market theory either needs to be applied or to be changed. Food labelling is not the answer to getting better food, better food production, or even better flows of information. At best, the struggle for more honest labelling can be an educational process in itself.

This article begins by describing a recent argument in print about interface design in human-computer interaction. The argument was provoked by published illustrations of some prototypes of dialogue boxes. It was about the methods used in designing for 'culturally diverse' users, about testing and intuition, usability and style, and about the undeclared assumptions and biases of designers. The account of the argument is followed by a commentary which raises questions about the positions taken by both sides; some of these questions have already arisen in the design of print 'interfaces'. The article concludes by pointing to wider questions which arise in designing for cultural diversity - questions which come up against the limits of designing.

Parliamentary counsel have long been criticised for the style of legislative texts, with readers claiming (often with some justification) that Acts of Parliament are difficult to read and understand. Parliamentary counsel in Australia have recognised the difficulties faced by users of Acts and, during the past seven or eight years, have by various means endeavoured to lessen those difficulties. This article outlines some of the initiatives that have been taken in Australia, and in particular in New South Wales, to make legislation more comprehensible to readers.

The symposium 'Public graphics: visual information for everyday use' (at Lunteren, The Netherlands, 26-30 September 1994 ) was organized by Harm Zwaga and Henriëtte . Hoonhout of Utrecht University's Department of Psychonomics, and Theo Boersema and Wim Nijhuis of the Delft University of Technology's Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering. Talks were in seven sessions: User instructions, Warnings; Forms; Practical and theoretical approaches to information presentation; Maps and plans; Wayfinding, signs, and sign systems; and Graphic symbols. The symposium's Proceedings are now out of print, but the editors plan a book, and abstracts of the 26 talks appear on pages 72-82. So these notes arise mainly from the discussions which weaved between the speakers' talks. Some participants later sent me their informal reflections and answered questions; for letting me quote from these, my thanks to Austin Adams, Theo Boersema, Fred Brigham, Bob Dewar, Janice Leong, Romedi Passini, Peter Simlinger, and Pat Wright (whose observations appear separately on page 82).