Both Armstrong and Munari discuss how designers considered “traditional” art was considered to be created and consumed for a small audience who either held certain beliefs or were in a certain class. They believe that design must be accessible, your audience is the public and it is a necessity to communicate with the public whether through your audience, employer or through reactions. Both authors state how overall this should be kept in mind despite what approach you take to your work visually.

Over everything else design should be functional in order to serve its purpose or deliver the message, whether the designer decides to make artistic choices such as making references to past art movements, at its core, its function and message should be clear. That’s why a designer should keep thinking of the theoretical, a designer should always be thinking on ‘how’ to resolve an issue, how the work would look like on various mediums, how to get across your target audience while making it clear enough for others. A designer should also think on ‘why’ a person may view or use the work in a different way. There are designers and movements dedicated to being neutral and functional enough in order for it to be unlikely to misinterpret, but there are various designers who separate themselves from that idea.

Due to advances in technology we can create forms and images in a less restricting and time-consuming manner. Resolution of images, print, and social media has changed how we approach or work. Designers approach their work differently depending on the mediums, keeping printing and online presence in mind. Design work can reach a larger audience which means more critique. Armstrong states that due to this designers grow aware that remaining neutral may not always be the correct approach, and that the public may be looking for direct and dynamic approaches.