By context I mean nothing esoteric or complicated, but combined semantic processes, such as the meeting of a word and an image. The word makes explicit the sign that carries the message. An image containing that message provides context, narrowing the radius of the semantic bubble as much as possible.
I want the sign to remain within that context. If it escapes, the radius inevitably changes, expanding and distorting.

As Roland Barthes explains in Rhetoric of the Image (1964), words can provide “anchorage” that limits an image’s polysemy, or form a “relay” relationship in which text and image complement one another and jointly determine meaning. Here we work with anchorage: we want word and image to precipitate on the same peak.

That is the key: word and image must precipitate on the same peak. In fact, I am not talking only about words and images. The concept extends to anything capable of generating communication, as an isolated sign or in intermodal combination.

For example: write “transparent” and show a hand holding opaque glass, and you might as well switch everything off: you are raising the negative tail. Glass may be transparent by nature, but if it is opaque, being glass matters little when transparency is your message. Of course, the opposite can sometimes work deliberately: well-constructed illogical contrasts can have a positive impact. In other cases, banality reigns. In general, narrative coherence must support the communication objective and the sign’s role as the vehicle of a precise meaning.

Sometimes, in certain contexts and with certain audiences, a little ambiguity can be useful: it stimulates curiosity and makes a message livelier and less textbook-like. But take care: what I call Controlled Blur Semiosis needs careful calibration. It can easily slip out of control, turning at best into sarcasm, or otherwise into contradiction or falsehood.

Some concrete examples:

• If we say “No borders” to promote a delivery service, but the details reveal that it delivers neither to Switzerland nor at weekends, we are using a blur that deflates at the first click.
• If we write “Absolute freedom” for a 70-horsepower city car with limited range and difficult parking, ambiguity does not stimulate: it disappoints. In the user’s mind, “freedom” evokes open spaces, autonomy and no constraints.
• If we launch a platform by saying “Reinvent the way you work”, only to discover it is yet another tool for organising to-do lists, the semantic curve splits between promise and reality. Blur degenerates into a genuine semiotic misalignment that often results in a bounce.

A) “No borders” (delivery) → controlled blur with anchorage

Context & objective: EU e-commerce, promising broad coverage without overpromising.
Before (problem): “No borders”. Users discover exceptions (CH/weekends) → boomerang. 

After (intervention).

• Tagline (peak): “We deliver in 24–48h in the EU + Switzerland.”
• Subline (anchorage): “Islands/remote areas 72h; weekend deliveries unavailable.”
• Visual: stylised map highlighting covered areas.
• ThroughView (2nd layer): costs/SLAs table by country, using progressive disclosure.
• Measurement: A/B test on click-to-cart and perceived clarity, on a 1–7 scale.

B) “Absolute freedom” (70 hp city car) → controlled blur with anchorage

Context & objective: compact city car; avoid evocative overclaims.
Before (problem): “Absolute freedom” evokes unlimited range and open spaces; in the city it clashes with restricted traffic zones, paid parking and limited power/range.

After (intervention).

• Tagline (peak): “Urban freedom, every day.”
• Subline (anchorage): “Length [X,X m], turning radius [Y,Y m], parking assistance as standard.”
• Visual: real urban scenes, tight parking spaces and manoeuvres.
• ThroughView (support): a “Dimensions & manoeuvres” tab with figures; a “What we do not promise” tab noting that traffic restrictions and fees vary by municipality.
• Measurement: comprehension check on the correct usage scenario + preference.

C) “Reinvent the way you work” (to-do SaaS) → Blur + ThroughView

Context & objective: a familiar to-do tool with hidden features, such as automations, dependencies and integrations.
Before (problem): a maximalist slogan → the curve “splits” between promise and reality.

After (intervention).

• Tagline (surface): “Coordinate work, not just lists.”
• Layer 2 (evidence): “Deadline and handover automations; –23% completion time in pilot teams.” If the data are unavailable, remove the figure: no “special effects”.
• Layer 3 (limits): “Works with standard processes; advanced customisation on Pro plans.”
• Measurement: task success on “Do you understand that it is more than a to-do list? Yes/no.”

The literature calls this “strategic ambiguity”. As Eric M. Eisenberg noted in 1984, a deliberate degree of ambiguity can unite different audiences and facilitate change, provided it is designed and contextualised rather than left to chance. That is exactly the control of blur discussed here.

In essence:

Too much blur = meaning disperses in a precipitation bubble that is not only too broad but sometimes out of context, unverifiable or untrue.

Too much rigidity = a message that stirs no emotion, is too technical and lacks vision.

For example, an online shop describes a sweatshirt as a “280 g cotton product, available in 4 sizes and 3 colours”. Perfectly correct, but its emotional impact is ZERO.

Or software introduces itself with “Our management system complies with regulation xyz”. A specific, useful truth, certainly, but hardly seductive.

This makes the control of blur clear: the right dose, tension, irony and so on, to convey a readable, coherent, properly contextualised, verifiable, true and distinctive message. Creativity really has no limits here.

For decades, advertising across all media has staked its credibility and effectiveness on its ability to calibrate semantic blur. Not only through words, but through narrative combinations and often unexpected associations of ideas. These aim not necessarily to generate a need for the product itself, but a desire for the meaning associated with it by calibrating blur to the context and the sign.

A scooter, for example? Perhaps not. But a feeling of independence, belonging and desirability? We all want a little of that, do we not?
So a young man waits outside school beside his scooter for his beautiful girlfriend. Think about it: what exactly are they trying to sell us? The scooter? Really??!! Of course that is what we will buy. But certainly not because we want a scooter…

Well-dosed semantic blur is therefore not synonymous with confusion or muddling the issue. It can also be layered emotional storytelling. When it works, when it is truly well calibrated, it is not forgotten: it creates an imprint.

Controlling precipitation within the Semantic Cloud also allows perspectives to shift naturally. I call this Parallax Semiosis. Essentially, it is a way to make a change of perspective work harmoniously.

Different viewpoints vary the angle, depth, symmetries and relationships between parts while preserving the same functional structure: they hold the centre.

The bubble floats slightly through Parallax Semiosis, but maintains its position in the Cloud.

Tagline: Hybrid car

• For an ordinary user, it is “a car that consumes less and pollutes less”.
• For a technician, it is “a dual propulsion system with optimised energy flow management”.
• For a communicator, it is “a responsible choice without sacrificing performance”.

Tagline: Office chair comfort

• For the buyer: “Finally, no backache after two hours.”
• For the designer: “Breathable materials, ergonomic structure, fine adjustments.”
• For marketing: “An immersive, natural working experience.”

In both examples, there are three viewpoints and three interpretations, but the same semantic peak. The bubble remains stable. The perspective shifts slightly, certainly, but the bubble stays where it is.

Parallax Semiosis allows multiple angles without losing alignment. If that fails, different audiences receive different messages, the bubble shifts and interpretations may no longer lead to positive or acceptable effects. Communication misses its target, the boomerang returns and irritation follows. When the bubble shifts like this, we have lost control, which for a brand can mean potential disaster.

ThroughView Semiosis describes an interpretative mode in which signs do not exhaust themselves at the surface but invite us to “look through”, using transparency and opacity as tools for grasping overlapping layers of meaning. It resembles glazing in painting: what appears in the foreground is only part of the composition, while the true experience emerges through perceiving the layers beneath. In systemic terms, ThroughView Semiosis sits alongside Blur and Parallax Semiosis. Blur governs the bubble’s breadth, parallax redefines its shape according to perspective, and ThroughView regulates visibility and access to the different layers.

This approach invites us to design communication experiences that encourage discovery, depth, time and memory.

In practice, this means depth and the perception of several layers that validate the semiotic process. In general, every communication experience is designed to be explored in depth, willingly or otherwise, revealing what lies beneath, what is declared, what can be measured and what is deliberately left opaque.
Layering a message means deciding what to show immediately, what to reveal only on closer, more attentive and thoughtful inspection, and what to disclose in the deepest layers, where the bare truth lies. We can promise effectiveness, beauty or speed; measure results, data and evidence; and also state limits: what I cannot guarantee, where I cannot reach, what I have not yet solved. Done well, the audience senses that the message is not one-dimensional or monomodal, but has depth. The most direct effect of that depth is trust.

In UX, this corresponds to “progressive disclosure” (Nielsen, 2006): showing the essentials immediately and reserving details for later levels reduces cognitive load and builds trust. My ThroughView applies the same principle to semiotics: a clear surface, layers of evidence and layers of limits.

But layering does not mean putting a list of KPIs in small print beneath an asterisk. It means building a message whose layers hold together, where readers or viewers sense a design intention, a “why”, behind every word and sign. When each decision, word, gesture, image, shape or composition has a reason rooted in coherence, history, values, harmony, contrasts and transparency, an implicit connection forms, even if it is not stated at the surface. That is where trust arises. That is where longstanding brands with decades of market history build their mythology.