Analogue processes for digitally native design students


  • George Haijan



Design education, analogue type, legibility, non-scalable text, tactile activity


Although fresh intakes of communication design students have grown up with constant digital connectivity and social media, they grapple to comprehend the relationship between communication, legibility, and usability of an analogue, printed publication. New intakes of communication design undergraduates, lack aesthetic sensitivity and formal appreciation of printed type. They are at ease when exploring work digitally, or manipulating forms or text on the computer, but when it comes to design for print, and transcribing text onto non-scalable media e.g., paper, they struggle with basic notions of typography, like weight, size, legibility, and hierarchy of information. Consequently, two analogue, tactile studio activities were developed to complement teaching and learning, and assist students to increase their formal and aesthetic perception of type, typography, and communication design. This qualitative research takes a closer look at the two workshops, and considers its impact on the work produced by students.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

George Haijan

Is an artist and a graphic designer. His practice is situated between Fine Arts, Graphic Design, and Advertising. He has been a design practitioner for more than 20 years and created work for many corporate, government, and non-government organisations in New Zealand and abroad. George’s main area of research focuses on the concept of masculine embodiment and its relationship with globalisation, technology, and popular culture. Using complex analogue methods, he brings together screen-printing, mark-making, and collage, to create a diverse body of works.


Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Polity Press; Malden, MA.

Bigelow, C. (2019). Typeface features and legibility research. Vision Research, 165, 162–172.

Bolkan, S., & Griffin, D. J. (2017). Students’ use of cell phones in class for off-task behaviors: The indirect impact of instructors’ teaching behaviors through boredom and students’ attitudes. Communication Education, 66(3), 313–329.

Cilliers, E. J. (2017). The challenge of teaching generation Z. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 188-198.

Dezuanni, M., Erstad, O., Flewitt, R., Kümmerling-Meibauer, B., & Pereira. (2020). Minecraft ‘worldness’ in family life: Children’s digital play and socio material literacy practices. The Routledge Handbook of Digital Literacies in Early Childhood, 366-376. Routledge.

Grigg, J. (2020). Materials and tools as catalysts of invention in graphic design ideation. Design Studies, 70, 100960.

Hajian, G. (2020, December). Analog processes for digitally native students. In Link Symposium Abstracts 2020 (pp. 32-33).

Kraushaar, J. M., & Novak, D. C. (2010). Examining the Affects of Student Multitasking with Laptops during the Lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 241–251.

Legge, G. E., & Bigelow, C. A. (2011). Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography. Journal of Vision, 11(5),8–8.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.

Rothman, D. (2016). A Tsunami of learners called Generation Z. URL:

Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and Social Interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103–113.


How to Cite

Haijan, G. (2021). Analogue processes for digitally native design students. DAT Journal, 6(2), 418–430.