When applied, propositional density is the notion that objects and environments with multiple meanings can be more interesting and memorable. The more deep meanings relative to the number of elements is what contributes to higher propositional density. We’ll use two examples below to illustrate. The equation used to calculate propositional density is as follows:
Propositional density (PD) = count of deep propositions / count of surface propositions
To calculate PD above requires understanding propositions. In this context proposition is an element that can’t be further broken down. As seen above there are two types. A surface proposition is often tenable and perceptible. A deep proposition is subtle or even hidden. For example in the US a stop sign has red, stop, and an octagon as surface propositions.1 These elements can no longer be broken down into meaningful parts. The stop sign’s only deeper proposition, however, is stop. It’s PD ratio of 1:3 implies a low propositional density which helps it achieve the goal of getting you to stop in your tracks. However, PD can also be applied to evaluate simply a sentence. Consider the following phrase highlighted by blogger Curtis Newbold in a blog post: “If gas pains persist, try Volkswagen.” The sentence as it is used in an old advertisement can be found here. The sentence cannot be broken down further into a logical element. There is merely one surface proposition which is Volkswagen suggesting it might be able to offer you better gas mileage. Digging deeper reveals its high propositional density as it has more than one deep propositions. These include alluding to the brand being a source of relief as well as using medical references to imply it can be a cure to one’s ailing gas problems.2
Example of the principle cited by one of my sources: Volkswagen slogan “If gas pains persist, try Volkswagen” as I have outlined above.3
Example of the principle not cited by one of my sources: Nike’s logo can be regarded as having high propositional density. On the surface it is two element: black in the color of a swoosh/checkmark. However it’s deep propositions include completing a task and marking it with a checkmark, wings on the shoes of the god Hermes who was swift and fast, victory, and progress which is generally regarded as up and to the right which is also the general direction pointed to by the Nike logo.4
Example of the principle not cited by one of my sources and not located online: To try and find a “real life” example I thought it would be good to walk along the tourist area of Market Street in San Francisco. As my eyes skimmed the numerous shops and restaurants, I found myself fixated on the simplicity of Oakley’s company logo. The distinctly flattened and stretched shape of the “O” makes it easily identifiable from other letter “Os.” Oakley, a well known brand in California, is of course in the business of making eyewear. It occurred to me that this shape was intentional and aligns with the fact human eyes are drawn as ovals that are wider than they are tall. Deep propositions of this logo include alluding to Oakley’s focus on eyes and a reference to the circular shape of one a primary courtyard and building at the Foothill Ranch headquarters in Southern California.5 Within the industry, Oakley is also known for eyewear innovations and generally align new product announcements and innovations together.6 I believe a third deep meaning for the “O” could be in reference to this iterative cycle of new innovations and subsequently bringing them to the consumer via eyewear.
Footnotes
1. Bradley, Steven. “Propositional Density: Adding Meaning To Your Designs.” Vanseodesign. Last modified Apr 19, 2010.
2. Newbold, Curtis. “Use Math to Make Better Logo Designs: The Propositional Density Principle.” Thevisualcommunicationguy. Last modified Oct 19, 2015.
3. Newbold, Curtis. “Use Math to Make Better Logo Designs: The Propositional Density Principle.” Thevisualcommunicationguy. Last modified Oct 19, 2015.
4. Google search. Accessed Oct 3, 2018.
5. Mantor, Cassidy. “Luxoticca mandates reorganization for Oakley.” fashionnetwork. Last modified Jul 27, 2016.
6. Oakley company site. Accessed Oct 7, 2018.
The discussion centered around “Propositional Density” is fascinating. In my opinion, I believe the term “Post rationalization = I don’t know how or why I created something but I can find some reasoning to support my design creation” has many similar elements to the process of “research through design” or “design-based research” (though these two are not quite the same term and are used differently in HCI and educational research). Since design is a reflective practice, designers may start with no concrete ideas about what they follow but over the course of working on a design, they are capable of designing principles, guidelines, even definitions and theories about specific design practices. Of course it is crucial to know many existing definitions and principles, but I think the beauty of design is to not to be bounded by these rules and frameworks, but to continue create new interpretation.
Hey Q, thanks for your detailed response. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss my questions/curiosities.
After studying your responses and also talking to Jessie (and to your point about us having a POV on this), my conclusion about PD is that it is trying to bring science and reason to design but not succeeding in doing it. Its is a nice to know guiding rail, but it’s certainly not something to rely on. I say this mainly because neither they have described objectively the many terms they use to explain the principle not any of this is empirically proven.
I believe that a all the design work, when it is not backed by user research, relies on a lot of ‘post rationalization.’ Proportional density is one way to post-rationalize. (Post rationalization = I don’t know how or why I created something but I can find some reasoning to support my design creation.)
Here’s something I shared with Jesse this morning and it is a classic example of post rationalization in design. You can easily visualize the creator of this document also using a concept/principle like PD to sell his/her design to clients/superiors.
This is Pepsi’s rebranding document (WIP) from 2008. I mean, I’ve not seen so much BS in one PDF in a long time : )
Link to document:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A617b2410-5a0b-466c-8e25-54b7c6eaf0d0
But BS aside, this document triggers many different thoughts:
1. (Visual) Design and (visual) designers are not necessarily linear, logical, scientific and measurement oriented in their thinking and process.
2. And yet, selling such design requires exactly the opposite. The work needs to ‘look’ logical, scientific and ‘feel like’ it’s measurable.
3. How, far (very far) design is from people, users, and customers even in a customer centric discipline like marketing. (Side thought, does this kind of design need to be user oriented? More fundamentally do people even care?)
4. How (visual) designers undermine being taken seriously by doing this kind of work. Muddying the waters?
5. In spite of all the talk about innovation, breakthroughs etc, decision makers at Pepsi (and many/most large corporations), are happy only with the familiar.
6. How things like this make many start-up leaders, who don’t have the luxury of time, money and meeting rooms, rely on commonsense, and not trust traditional visual designers /branding experts. (Uber designed their logo in house in 2016.)
(Side note, Uber got a lot of flack for self designing their logo. But what’s wrong with doing that?
And then, the new CEO spent millions with a design consultancy to redesign it, again. Does anyone care?)
There are so many more things to process about this but I’ll stop here.
Hey Saurabh let’s dive right in, shall we?
1) What defines an element?
In the post I was attempting to use more common nomenclature and element was the best I term I could come up with. Alternatively replace everywhere I used element with the word “something” and you’ll see what I mean.
2) How do we define a proposition?
Surface Proposition
Placing a principle upon a principle doesn’t feel like the best approach as it would raise other questions (e.g. if there is a principle of the second order then what does that mean about all first order principles? What determines this hierarchy?) I’m going to argue the answer is grey. Meaning an proposition depends on the interplay of aspects contained within the object or environment being evaluated. The UPD example as well as my own post cite mostly logos. For these you could readily break them down into shapes (and if desired, colors) as propositions. Using the Obama campaign logo from UPD, it’s an O with a set of lines. The use of colors merely reinforces these as the primary “propositions” rather than an alternate interpretation of an O with five horizontal lines. Stare away and then look at it again – do you see an O with “stripes” or do you upon first glance truly see an O with five lines? I’m certainly not every person but I would hypothesize the first holds more true than the later and the intelligent use of color is what helps determine this.
From the above example, we might be tempted to say that a surface proposition is every “basic unit” of shape, letter, etc. This desire to derive a universal lowest common denominator in my opinion is still too narrow. We’ll disprove it using the VW ad example from my post. Following the proposed logic, this would argue each letter in the one-liner statement is an element. But the first letter of the VW ad, the “I,” has no standalone meaning or form. It is only when you look at the entire sentence that the individual “I” makes sense as the first letter of a sentence. Here the sentence is what becomes an proposition. Again as a proxy I propose the “glancing away and look back approach.” What I hypothesize you see is the sentence, not a standalone letter “I.”
Deep Proposition
I posit the major difficulty in providing a definition lies in the fact that deep propositions aren’t universal. Instead, it depends heavily upon the lenses of societal norms and cultural context. Take Carolyn Davidson’s design of the Nike logo in 1971. The founders of Nike originally asked for a logo that conveyed “motion.” We’ll unfortunately never know Carolyn’s actual inspiration and what she modeled it after unless she writes a memoir. In 1970, if asked, participants might have just looked at the design and said it was a “checkmark.” A few people in 1972 who were aware of the company might have said Nike. Today, however, the logo has taken on more meaning thanks to the company’s success and what we as a society attach to it. Without this lens there could potentially be no attachment of deep propositions. For example take someone frozen for the past 50 years and recently thawed. With no context of recent society, what might thought of the logo? It’s possible that it is once again merely a checkmark.
3) Can propositional density as a principle just be followed to create meaningful objects?
It’s possible but per my previous comments only when combined with the right cultural context. Of course a bit of ingenuity, creativity, and luck certainly doesn’t hurt as I’m sure you’re well aware! As an example let’s use the French statement depicted here: Nos Differences Nous Unissent. With some knowledge of the French language you would understand it translates to “our differences unite us.” However, only with a deeper cultural lens would one realize over the past decade the country went through identifying what it means to be “French.” The end vision was then embodied in that statement and placed on the national soccer team jersey as way to publicize and ingrain it. Hence the value propositional density calculation actually differs based on the cultural lens.
4) What is the right way to use any of these principles in practice?
I don’t have an answer to this one either but feel it’s our responsibility as a cohort to take a position. My personal opinion is that a process of “creative storming” and ideation are the first necessary steps. Past these steps, once momentum gets underway, these principles should be top of mind and available as a handy reference.
5) Research proving out the effectiveness of propositional density (PD)?
The closest relevance I could find was PD as it applies to helping create rich visualizations – article here. However it doesn’t conclude on effectiveness or “good” but rather how it can be fun to do.
I then did a quick search on Google Scholar which also didn’t reveal anything that directly supported or refuted whether PD is good for business/society. What I did find was research supporting the view that sentences and text with high PD is more complex for elderly populations to understand. Links to papers here and here. These additional examples I found highlight PD in an entirely different context which is interesting but unfortunately not directly relevant to our class.
(Copying this here from the Q&A forum, as suggested by Jesse)
Hey Q, thanks for this. Your post certainly makes the principle it clearer. Your post triggered a few other thoughts and now I’m curious about:
1. What are the parameters that define that an element cannot be broken down further? Are there principles that define what is meant by the most basic element? For instance, in Science, we have basic elements. Do we have some basic elements in design too?
2. How do we define what is a ‘proposition’ and what is not?
3. Does the presence of proportional density as a principle mean that everyone could just follow this and create meaningful images/logos/ designs etc?
4. How is the principle of proportional density used in practice? Is it used more to check designs or to develop designs? (It’s difficult to imagine how designers would be starting with a principle before they put pen to paper).
5. Has there been any research about the user impact of designs that score high on proportional density? I mean have we ben able to measure how hight PD designs are better for business or society or environment than low PD designs?
I find this principle very fascinating. It tries to bring some logic to design and I am curious how deep it goes.