To cite this work:

Lelis C. (2021) Smart Visual Identities: A Design Challenge for Smart Learning Environments. In: Mealha Ó., Rehm M., Rebedea T. (eds) Ludic, Co-design and Tools
Supporting Smart Learning Ecosystems and Smart Education. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 197. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-981-15-7383-5_12

Smart visual identities: a design challenge for smart learning

environments

Catarina Lelis [0000-0003-4402-8876]

University of West London, London, UK

[email protected]

Abstract. Smart environments in the context of education have been embedding

technologies easily adoptable by all and that support users in optimising life, greatly
resorting in data visualization tactics. This means every citizen is also expected to
develop their design literacy in order to effectively be a data contributor, information
coder/decoder and an evolving knowledgeable human being. This paper speculates
on the relevance of investing in brand design activities, in particular in “smart visual
identities”, which configure as a meaningful and holistic branding resource: besides
serving as a customisable window of the meaningful data collected on the user within
a smart learning ecosystem (in this case university campuses), it is also a remarkable
asset for the development of bonds between the user and said environment (increased
brand loyalty via belonging). Seven brands of smart campuses were analysed and four
workshops were delivered at two different universities. The results show that the
analysed smart campuses do not rely on smart visual identities and the workshops
allowed the identification of features that a customisable smart brand identity should
entail. It is argued that by having to customise a highly relatable brand identity (such
as the one of the University is to its learners), individuals will increasingly develop
their design literacy, while using the campus in a sustainable way.

Keywords: Visual Identity; Design Literacy; Learning Ecosystems; Smart

Branded Campuses

1 The background and its initial relevant data

A smart ecosystem is human-centred. It is able to offer optimised infrastructures and
customisable technology-mediated solutions, responding to active citizens’ needs and
big data usage, fostering adaptable and challenging learning contexts, in a bottom-up
approach (Giovanella, 2014). It also emphasises learning through curation, creation or
authoring digital or physical artefacts, in constantly changing contexts.
This is what a smart learning ecosystem promises, and the design thinking informing
the way how this brand promise is delivered and the impact it may have in a learners’
life is the foundational question underpinning this research.

1.1 The role of design literacy

In 2016 a number of international learning-centred associations signed the Timisoara
Declaration, with the joint mission of developing smart learning ecosystems by, firstly,
promoting a fully interoperable tech-spheres. The signees add that such ecosystems
have the potential to emancipate disparate members of a community in becoming active
citizens, defending that design literacy is paramount for individuals to develop the
ability to manage and solve complex processes, emerging from creative problem
solving and diverse sources of data (Timisoara Declaration, 2016). Therefore,
understanding the worth of Design seems to be of utmost importance.
Design is, in fact, an omnipresent discipline and a default human condition. It is a
transformational and inspirational humanist system that constantly shapes the world
around us, bridging efficiency, efficacy and experience, balancing technical,
commercial and human considerations (Norman, 2013; Dabner & Stewart, 2017). In a
visually saturated society, coding and decoding information visually is becoming a
survival skill, and that alone justifies the need for developing design literacy in all
citizens globally, namely when the contribution of design to the economy is
increasingly valued due to the relevance of design skills to the so-called fourth
industrial revolution (The Design Council, 2018). In a smartness context, a requirement
for the contributing audiences would be a minimum sense of design purpose and basic
systems of enquiry in the context of design – design is an impactful and societal activity
in every way (Brown, 2009) and several authors defend it should be more extensively
explored at the level of other basic literacies (Pacione, 2010; Nielsen & Braenne, 2013;
Nielsen, 2017).

1.2 Smart branded campuses

Design is, as well, a conscious instrument in the development of a brand. Being a brand
a promise of quality (which can be attached to the most explicit features, such as a
product’s function, and/or to the most subjective aspects, like feelings and emotions),
communication is deemed necessary for the entity behind the brand to gain the desired
status in its operating context. Designers have been inspired by the challenge of
transforming data into meaningful brand experiences. For example, Uber has been
really successful in making available their geographical, mapping, routing, and activity
data, providing users with a fast and relevant experience. However, many cases fail in
doing so, namely when it comes giving back to their users a data-informed and data-
driven interactive result, namely whilst guaranteeing their visual identity guides all the
possible data visualisation interactions.
As with every other entity, smart ecosystems (cities, schools, university campuses,
museums, libraries, science parks, etc.) always own a name, in many cases they invest
in a tangible visual mark (like a logo) and, therefore, they will be dealing with some
sort of branding exercise. Interestingly, at the beginning of this decade, the expression
smart brand rose in a limited circle of brand experts’ lexicon, and is now expanding,
being used to define all sorts of digital and more or less interactive solutions that can
be potentially represented by a) a somehow dynamic brand’s visual identity system
(Kreutz, 2005; Felsing, 2010; Jones, 2012; Van Nes, 2012; Leitão, Lélis and Mealha,
2014), or b) a very flexible marketing approach (Hollis, 2013), without necessarily
having any correspondence with citizens’ active participation and their own meaningful
construction of knowledge.
It is believed that smart brands, as commonly used by some brand and design
experts, may actually not involve the smartness design-oriented construct as defined in
Timisoara. Since marketing is a field that, by its nature, has not been very popular in
human-centred approaches, a designer would probably argue that a smart brand’s
origin cannot have any relationship with this much commercial and sales-led field.
Hence, one would anticipate it must be more closely related with the design exercise
underpinning the conceptualisation and development of a brand. From this perspective,
dynamic brand identities may help in clarifying the concept.

2 Methods
The main objective of this ongoing research is to suggest a definition and classification
of smart brands so that these can rightfully represent and deliver the smartness promise
of smart ecosystems, those already acknowledged as such, but also the environments
with the potential of becoming it.
The research draws on Hermeneutics, informed by Gadamer’s perspective that the
individuals can only reach their own truth when they understand or master their own
experience (Gadamer, 1989). It is rooted in the methodological approach of Grounded
Theory. Following the inspirational quote by Glaser that “all is data” (1998, p.8), the
research considers Charmaz’s guidelines to ensure adequacy of data quality (2014),
hence capturing a range of contexts, perspectives and timeframes. Greatly informed by
inductive and abductive reasoning supporting a speculative design exercise, at this
initial stage the research will resort mostly in secondary research (fieldnotes, scholarly
literature) and the analysis of visual artefacts resulting from creative workshops. The
question guiding it is: “How smart can a smart campus’ visual identity be?”.

2.1 The exploratory stage

Last decade, a couple of authors seem to agree on the main categories that explain the
different kinds of what is widely known as Flexible/Dynamic Visual Identities: visual
identities that, unlike conventional ones, allow variations and permutations to their visual
identity systems (e.g. by changing colours, patterns, typefaces, backgrounds, etc.), but
still guaranteeing they are fully recognised. In 2010, Ulrike Felsing puts forward five
different categories as a possible taxonomy (2010); in 2012, Irene van Nes proposes a
framework of six (2012) which is, one year later, confirmed and augmented by Emanuel
Jochum (2013). From these five or six, two are absolutely common and can help in
defining what a smart brand could entail, namely by looking at its visual identity system
which can be fully data-informed: the category that defines brands that are open to
personalisation strategies, usually involving their audiences in the creation and
representational process such as the case of the visual identity developed to celebrate the
450th anniversary of Rio de Janeiro’s foundation as a city (Fig.1), and the computer-
mediated one, which describes brand identities that are dynamically represented by live
data, fed into and interpreted by special software. Some cases falling under this category
are the new visual identity of Dataveyes which originates from the live relations between
its staff members, being set in motion by their activity data, or Swisscom’s new logo
which shape changes according to the number of visitors in both their stores and
website. However, none of these bring any practical advantages to the audiences, beyond
the mere fruition and experiential ones. Nordkyn is possibly the best example of brand
identities that are dynamically represented by live data and that provide the audiences
with meaningful information (Fig.2). In this work, said categories will be labeled as
Customisable and Computerised, respectively.

Fig. 1. Customisable brand identity of Rio450.

Fig. 2. Computerised brand identity of Nordkyn, which logo reflects the data received by a feed of
weather statistics, real-time changing when the direction of the wind or the temperature changes.

2.2 The analysis of campuses’ visual identities

The research initiated with an appreciation of the visual identity systems of some of the
HE institutions whose campuses could fall within the smart learning ecosystems’ label
and that have been considered in other research, e.g. University of Rome Tor Vergata,
Polytechnic of Turin, University Politehnica of Bucharest, University of Craiova,
Politehnica University of Timișoara, University of Aveiro and Aalborg University. The
main objective was to assess each visual identity case against the definition of dynamic
visual identity and, if applicable, identify the category in which said identities would have
a better fit. The framework for analysis was Chaves & Belluccia’s which identifies the
parameters to evaluate the graphic quality of a brand (2003). The cases would be
considered for the purposes of understanding smart visual identities of brands, if both
categories Customisable and Computerised were to be recognised.

2.3 The field studies

A group of four workshops was organised with the intent to capture the possible avenues
for Universities’ visual identities to be used as smart devices, embedding the smartness
ideals defined in the Timisoara Declaration. Three workshops were delivered at the
University of West London (UWL) in London, with students enrolled in creative-based
courses – BA Advertising and Public Relations, BA Graphic Design and MA Advertising,
Branding and Communication (Fig.3) – and a fourth one that took place at the Manchester
Metropolitan University (MMU) in Manchester, with MPhil/PhD Design students, all of
them teaching academics (Fig.4). In total, 57 individuals participated in these workshops,
in which, after 1) collaboratively creating mindmaps on what a smart campus should be
from the participants’ perspective, and 2) breaking down Maslow’s pyramid to detect
their own needs as campus users, a speculative design exercise allowed them to anticipate
scenarios of meaningful campus-related data visualisation through the brand’s identity.

Fig. 3. A sample of the outputs created at the UWL workshops.

Fig. 4. The creative stage at the MMU workshop.

3 Findings and Discussion

None of the seven analysed smart HE institutions have anything to do with the
suggested conceptualisation of a smart visual identity. In none were found any elements
that could indicate a design approach based on the graphical and informational premises
of categories Customised and Computerised. Therefore, if smartness is meant to be
informed by design practices and a promise delivered by specific learning environments,
the way it is represented and branded should consistently and coherently crystallise the
inherent desire/need of promoting design as a pivotal condition for humans to develop
and innovate. And that seems to not be the case.
The workshops, grounded on a preliminary understanding of what a smart campus
entails, and after analysing their users’ needs and understanding of how they use
information, supplied an incredibly rich body of data which is still currently being
analysed (Fig.5). The most obvious insight is that the information a smart visual identity
could give back to its users is geolocation-related, working almost as a “within the
campus compass”, entailing such a level of complexity that would not just provide users
with GPS-like directions for their next meeting/class, avoiding busy corridors or
highlighting lifts out of order, but also taking them through a route that would include
a hint towards, for example, the nearest toilet/cafe in case the user had not been there
for more than a definable number of hours. In these cases, the visual identity would
adopt a flexible and movable graphical approach (likely shape-based), such as the one
implmeneted by Nordkyn. Other relevant data visualisations for an optimised campus
experience had clearly to do with 1) achievement and success, since there were several
instances that were studies’ progression related (e.g. marks and deadlines, made explicit
within the brand logo by colour coding), and 2) sense of belonging, as several
participants created a visual identity version that would give them a clear sense of, for
example, how many country fellows are on campus. It was also mentioned by
participants that, by having to customise a highly relatable brand identity, they would
develop their sense of belonging toward the university, which in brand equity terms
would be seen as increased brand loyalty.

Fig. 5. A customised representation of UWL’s logo

So far, this research allowed the visual and interaction properties’ analysis of some
of the so-called smart brands; Nordkyn is one of the best examples in which useful and
meaningful information is being visually depicted in a brand’s visual identity but it fails
on the customisation level. It is the researcher’s understanding that smart brands would
fall within a specific type of flexible/dynamic brand that, among other strategic
features, makes use of real time data to implement transmogrifying conditions to their
visual attributes or elements (colour, type, shape, relation with space, etc.). However,
the conducted exploratory analysis suggests that, data visualisation wise, the brand
identites of smart learning environments, do not include citizens as active participants,
do not take any advantage of smart/big data in order to promote personalised
experiences in the context of learning and continuous knowledge creation, and only a
few could potentially promote design literacy and creativity, not just by telling, but by
doing and leading by example – and a brand’s visual assets are great showcase displays.
With this research, it is expected to demonstrate that one of the defining attributes of
smart brands is to include a discourse based on broader dimensions of design. On the other
hand, it is being presupposed that the existing smart learning environments do not
communicate through a smart brand (identity) approach, and that their promotion of design
literacy is not actually grounded on a systematised or holistic design-based exercise.

4 Contribution and future steps

Entertaining profiles, participatory strategies and memorable experiences, enabled and
promoted through proper and unique interaction schemes based on meaningful use of
data, may be exciting ways to overcome the rigid and numerical nature of smart data in
which smart environments heavily rely and which is massively underused by the
contributing individuals. Hypermodern brands, in a way, bring to life McLuhan’s idea
that it is the medium that defines the message and its contents, being the brand, in this
sense, a continuous metaprocess. This is even more true when these allow on-the-fly
processing of and reaction to data, but also all the asynchronous interaction possibilities
which, together with real ordinary people, provide brands with a highly significant
character and people with meaningful and relevant experiences. Smart visual identities
(of campuses) may well be defined by having the responsibility of bringing data back
to people, optimising the underlying conditions for learning. They can be used to
dynamically represent the level of smartness of the campus and to help its users to have
a smarter experience. They could actually integrate campus related data with the user’s
specific needs outside campus but still campus related (e.g. the next and nearest public
transport to get them to the campus, by visually expressing data retrieved from apps
such as Citymapper), hence possibly optimising the user’s ecosystem at a broader scale.
Working together, campuses’ brands and designers can transform data into beautiful,
expressive but also functional experiences. Data can truly become visual, physical,
experiential interactions but, by nature, it is inherently invisible. Brands and their
visual-based language resources can be the leading asset in making the invisible visible,
namely with the added-value that the data being used is unique to each brand.
The expected next step would be to complete the analysis of the corpus obtained at
the workshops to identify the defining attributes of smart visual identities, through a
binary checklist, for example. In order to avoid any bias, this assessment would be
further performed by two other academics, preferably from the subject fields of design
and learning technologies. This can also, hopefully, define a framework for higher
education entities to implement their own smart brands, developing creative and design
thinking-based learning environments, and authentically become Smart Learning
Ecosystems.

References
1. BORNMANN, L. (2017). Measuring impact in research evaluations: a thorough discussion
of methods for, effects of and problems with impact measurements. High Educ, 73:775–787.
DOI:10.1007/s10734-016-9995-x.
2. BROWN, T. (2009). Change by Design: How design thinking transforms organizations and
inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business.
3. CHARMAZ, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through
Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE.
4. CHAVES, N. & BELLUCCIA, R. (2003). La Marca Corporativa: Gestión y Diseño de
Símbolos y Logotipos. Buenos Aires: Paidós.
5. DABNER, D. & STEWART, S. (2017). Graphic Design School: A Foundation Course for
Graphic Designers Working in Print, Moving Image and Digital Media (6th Ed). London:
Thames and Hudson.
6. FELSING, U. (2010). Dynamic identities in cultural and public contexts. Zurique: Lars
Muller Publishers.
7. GADAMER, H-G. (1989). Truth and Method, 2nd Ed, London: Sheed and Ward.
8. GIOVANELLA, C. (2014). Where’s the smartness of learning in smart territories?
Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, (22), 60-68.
9. GLASER, B. G. (1998). Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
10. HOLLIS, N. (2013). Brand Premium: How Smart Brands Make More Money. New York:
Palgrave McMillan.
11. JOCHUM, Emanuel. (2013). Dynamic brands: how flexible design systems turn turn brands
into dynamic visual identities (Published master’s Thesis) Zurich University of Arts, Zurich.
12. JONES, R. (2012). Five ways branding is changing. Journal of Brand Management, 20 (2),
77-79. doi:10.1057/bm.2012.51.
13. KREUTZ, E. (2005), Identidade Visual Mutante: uma prática comunicacional da MTV. PhD
Thesis. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brasil.
14. LEITÃO, S., LÉLIS, C. & MEALHA, O. (2014). Marcas Dinâmicas: Haverá forma de as
orientar?, paper presented at the 1st International Congress on Branding, ESTG, 2-4
October 2014, Leiria, Portugal.
15. NIELSEN, L. M. & BRAENNE, K. (2013). Design Literacy for Longer Lasting Products,
Studies in Material Thinking, Vol. 9, Paper 7.
16. NIELSEN, L. M. (2017). Design Literacy in General Education. Design and Technology
Education: an International Journal, [S.l.], v. 22, n. 1, may 2017. Retrieved from:
https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2193. (07 Nov 2019).
17. NORMAN, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things. Boston: MIT Press.
18. PACIONE, C. (2010) Evolution of the Mind: A Case for Design Literacy, Interactions, Vol
17 No.2, pp. 6-11.
19. THE DESIGN COUNCIL (2018). The Design Economy 2018: the state of design in the UK.
Retrieved from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk (03 Jul 2019).
20. TIMISOARA DECLARATION (2016). Better Learning for a Better World through People
Centred Smart Learning Ecosystems. Timisoara: ASLERD. Retrieved from
http://www.mifav.uniroma2.it/inevent/events/aslerd/docs/TIMISOARA_DECLARATION
_F.pdf (25 January 2018).
21. UNITED NATIONS (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org (15 Feb 2019).
22. Van NES, I. (2012). Dynamic Identities: How to create a living brand. Amsterdam: BIS.