#Reach1Person

I’ve been creating animations about science for several years. I work mostly with non-profits and media outlets. Occasionally, I work with science-based companies. 
‍
Before I was an animator, I was a scientist. I was knee deep in postdoc hell when I decided to bail and focus my creative energy elsewhere. That, in itself, is a story for another day. 
‍
When I was in academia, I used Illustrator routinely to create diagrams, charts and figures for publications, conference posters and grant proposals. I grew to love it. But, designing figures to help other academics understand science they already understand isn’t terribly challenging. 
‍
Creating visuals to inform the general public can be. 

I suspect that’s where there’s a greater, more urgent need. 
‍
That’s really the mission of this pop-up site.
‍
And, to get things started, I’m offering a FREE challenge to anyone interested in learning Adobe Illustrator to create science visuals.

But, there’s more to science communication than learning new software. 
‍
My hope is to inspire you to think about science visuals differently. I want to challenge you to reach out to new audiences and get them curious about a topic you love or one that you study. I want you to start thinking about how you might visually explain the cell cycle or ATP production to your spouse. 
‍
Or to your ten year old nephew. 

Or to gram-gram, and have her respond with something other than “that’s nice dear...” 

I want you to learn to meet your audience where they are, to pull them in and get them curious about something they didn’t know yesterday. 

#Reach1Person is a plea to always think about your viewer first. It’s my way of challenging you (and reminding myself because I’m human) to put yourself in their shoes. 

I still consider myself a student of both Adobe and of sci comm. But, as I’ve discovered over the past several years, there’s still plenty of room for the field to grow. 

I intend to grow with it. 

I’ll start with the problems I see with communication - the biggest offense being the insistence (yes, I’ll go so far as to call it that), on creating boring shit.  

Behind spreading inaccuracies or falsifying information, being boring is pretty close to the top of the list of things not to do.

How do I know? 

I’ve created plenty of boring content. *hangs head in shame*

I don’t always have all the answers, but I know when I’m working with a video script that entirely misses the mark and when an infographic makes more sense than animation. The medium you choose should depend on the message and what the viewer needs to hear or see. It’s never about you. I’ve tried many times to gently point clients in the right direction. 

Some listen. Some don’t.

I’ll keep trying. 

Because the danger of creating content no one sees or engages with has consequences that stretch far beyond my hurt feelings. 

A reluctance (or apathy) towards effective, empathetic communication will result in the public getting their information elsewhere. If you don’t think there are consequences to that, consider the global cost of climate change denial, anti-vax movements and people who still think covid is a hoax or that this pandemic was intentional. 

Don’t be boring.

Creating intentionally interesting content isn't easy. It requires you to think outside the box, try new things and be willing to fail once in a while. And with that, there are three common mistakes that are easy to make, but their mere acknowledgement is a step towards better communication.

Mistake #1: Not appreciating how hard it is to NOT be boring.

When a visitor lands on the page with your content, what do you suppose your first mission is?

Here’s a hint:
‍
It isn’t to plow them with information. I’d argue that fire-hosing your viewer with content is never the mission. Do this at your own risk, so long as you do this one little thing first.

Pique curiosity. 

Something about your content needs to be riveting enough to encourage the visitor to keep reading, clicking through or watching. 

Because even your peeps will bail if you send them something they’re not intrigued by.

They’ll tell you they saw it and enjoyed it. 

They’re lying to you. 

Once they’ve opened up the door and entered the room, NOW you can proceed granting them access to the information they came for. Don’t dumb it down or stray from scientific accuracy. 

But, understand you need to spark their curiosity first. 

Nothing else matters if you can’t do this.

It’s the same reason popular writers spend so much time crafting headlines. Some will argue that it’s the most important part of the article. A single riveting sentence - whose only goal is to entice the viewer to start reading.
‍
It starts with trying to understand who your audience is and knowing (and caring) enough about them to try and meet them where they are and encourage them to learn something they didn’t know yesterday. 

It might be as simple as using a great metaphor or as challenging as laying out the information differently - in an order that might be more compelling for the viewer. Anything that encourages them to stick around longer is a step in the right direction. Your job is to make it easier for your visitor to stay.

I didn’t say it would be easier for you.  

It’s the difference between sending people here to learn more about endangered species, and sending them here.

One is likely maintained by those experienced in producing science content for the web. They’re bright, have the requisite academic background and writing experience, and everything’s on brand. There’s nothing outwardly wrong here. 

I’m not hating. 

It’s exactly what you’d expect a conservation site to look like.

The other was created by a young interactive designer - allowing him to experiment with some CSS code he was interested in at the time. He’s not a scientist or a writer. This is a personal project (something I fully endorse and encourage) and, so long as the accuracy of the information is maintained, the result is something really interesting. He’s also not an artist. I will circle back to this point often, because there’s a misconception that you need to be wildly artistic to create science visuals. 

It simply isn’t true. 

Your imagination, vision and message often matter more than your artistic talent. 

Which site did you spend more time on?

When I’m asking you to think about messaging and presentation differently, this is where I’m headed. 

I don’t expect anyone to create a webpage that gets featured in Smashing Magazine or that racks up web awards. Bryan James’ Species in Pieces did both. 

Just promise me you’ll open up your mind to creating something different. And, if you’re in the position to contract out this kind of work, hopefully you’ll consider commissioning something different, too. It’s a start. 

One more thing. 

Sometimes, your best weapon in teaching the audience something new isn’t a metaphor or a different layout. 

It’s story. 

I feel as though the concept or “storytelling” is overdone, and science content is often informational. There’s not a lot of storytelling involved when the content you’ve been commissioned to create answers the question “What’s a gene?” When there really isn’t a story, attempting to create one rarely makes sense.

But, it does work occasionally. This depends on the intended audience and what, exactly, you want the viewer to take away.  

Consider these two very different animations about the drug warfarin.

Compare the British Heart Foundation’s information-driven animation - How Does Warfarin Work?‍
‍
To this story driven collaboration between Dog Rabbit Studio and Nature Video - Blood, Rats and Anticoagulants: The story of Warfarin‍
‍
Both animations are beautifully (and professionally) done. Both get the message across and both do so in a relatively short period of time. 

Most of the work I do and the kind of content creation this site is intended to inspire, is messaging intended for general audiences. 

If all you want for the viewer is to get the punchline “warfarin is a common blood thinner used to reduce the risk of blood clots,” the story-driven version may have a better chance of encouraging the viewer to watch to the end. It’s also something they’re more likely to retain. 

Because it’s not boring.

Metaphors. Re-arrangement. Stories. Anything you can do to make your stuff look as interesting as possible. 

Please, do try to not be boring.

Mistake #2: Not appreciating the most important person in the room.

The most important person is your viewer. 

Duh.
‍
You would think this should be obvious but, occasionally, the viewer takes a backseat to other challenges - one of the biggest that organizations and companies face is a desire to be taken seriously. 

I get it. 

The mission is incredibly important and there’s a desire to communicate that in a manner that aligns with the brand. Humor and cutesy aren’t always appropriate.  

And, I’d argue that being interesting while staying on brand aren’t mutually exclusive endeavors. 

And yet, here we are. 

When considering a topic that’s inherently dry, ask yourself the following question:

What can we do to make this topic so interesting that it’s irresistible?

Or, if that’s a bit of a stretch, then simply ask yourself - What can we do to make it more interesting? 

It's harder than it sounds.

Want to know what I like to do when I’m considering how I might make content more interesting?

I pretend I’m designing it for children. 

That seems to remove a lot of the stuffiness that can sometimes be associated with science content. And, actively brainstorming visuals for young eyes can lead to some creative breakthroughs. 

Don’t get me wrong. Effective content can certainly be designed honoring guidelines and brand restrictions. 

But, fussing more over color palettes and fonts than whether you’re creating interesting content for the viewer (or how they’ll even find said content) is a curious kind of irony.

Because no one’s going to see it. 

And, in the event someone stumbles across it, what in the world will they say when they discover you labeled your diagram with Helvetica instead of Verdana? 

That’s a rhetorical question.

Seriously, people.

Priorities.

I sometimes wonder how much more effective some content would be, if there were...less rules.  

If it focused more on creating interesting experiences for the viewer and less on “staying on brand.”

If the viewer sticks around, we’ve won. 

If they’ve shared it, we’ve won. 

As a parent and an ex scientist, many of my social media contacts are also parents. They skew educated and have kids that range roughly from 5th grade to college-aged. Many have degrees in STEM, and it’s not uncommon for them to share interesting content they find online intended for younger eyes.

This is one such example.
‍
2.2 Million shares on Facebook.

It’s an interactive experiment (yes, another personal project) by designer Neal Agarwal. Believe it or not, the friend and fellow parent who shared it didn’t pass it along because her young son spent several minutes scrolling.

She shared it because she did. 

“Could. Not. Stop. Scrolling!” was the title of her enthusiastic endorsement. Intrigued, I clicked through to see what she was talking about. 

Now I’m sharing it with you. 

Don’t underestimate the power of designing content for younger audiences.

And, if you can’t make it interesting, you need to make it relevant.

It needs to be content they’re actively searching for and your company or organization has the answer. 

I said ACTIVELY searching for. 

A video highlighting your operational report from 2019 didn’t make the cut.

Neither did the one from 2018.

So, what qualifies?

Breaking science news occasionally makes the list (in 2020/21 - virtually anything related to covid fits into this category...but still see Mistake #1 and 3). 

Or, information that’s helpful.

It’s showing visitors how to use your website.

It’s using video or infographics to answer FAQs. 

It’s using visuals to walk them through a protocol.