Adelia Carstens|Alfons Maes|Lilian Gangla-Birir
Understanding visuals in HIV/AIDS education in South Africa: differences between literate and low-literate audiences
article reports research project aimed determining scope nature differences picture comprehension literate lowliterate audiences context hiv aids structured interviews held 30 lowliterate 24 literate adult speakers african languages responses coded analysed qualitatively quantitatively consistent previous research found purely analogical visuals pose relatively interpretation problems across literacy spectrum literate lowliterate respondents recognised human beings familiar analogous objects equally successfully interpretation abstract items problematic respondents literacy levels relatively lowliterate respondents purely symbolic conventional abstract elements speech thought balloons purely mathematical symbols difficult lowliterate individuals since analogical residue trigger relevant meaning aspects visual metaphors difficult require culturespecific knowledge results strongly suggest designers exploit expressive power human body constructing abstract meaning humans comparable experiences associated basic actions bodily expressions therefore facial expressions body postures positions powerful transferring complex messages advise pictorial metaphors art styles distort objects complex pictures partially symbolic content well abstract symbols borrowed written language omitted possible