–Engage

A response to Peter Morville’s article, “Information Architecture 3.0″.

There has been a lot of talk of the demise of IA due to various factors:

• Joshua Porter calls for the demise of IA based on HIS focus of social network software in how “relationships” actually trump “information” as the primary axis of relevance when designing these “new” systems.
• Christina Wodke didn’t exactly make a call for the demise of IA, but rather expressed her angst that she has outgrown a community that she was so instrumental in helping to define and build and STILL by publishing and contributing to Boxes & Arrows remains a vital force within the community whether she likes it or not.
• David Armano takes a more pragmatic look at the question in his own blog which is geared towards the interactive agency community and Experience Design community.

Then on the IAI-Members list I got into a bit of a tuffle with some of the long standing members there (I’ve been a member since its inception as well) because I was supporting Joshua’s initial critique of IA as being myopic in its practice and as a role for a practitioner it will be subsumed by the larger disciplines of design. I even said that this will probably hold true for interaction design as both disciplines are very narrow in their focus and really are small screwdrivers in a total practitioners tool chest.

Peter Morville started the thread on IAI because he was being coy and wanted people to save all these premature obituaries. In a way it is all silly, I agree to call for the death of any disciplines, since all disciplines mature and adapt. For example, and to Joshua Porters interests,Folksonomy (can be simply described as social tagging)–one of the first tools of social networks: Flickr and del.icio.us are its poster children–is a term coined by one of the IA Community’s very own, Thomas Vander Wal . His work on the “Personal Information Cloud” also speaks directly to Joshua’s interest in social networking software as well. Another, even bigger big win for the IA Community is that Jesse James Garrett coined the term “AJAX” to describe the trend he was seeing in web-application spaces. Jesse is another long-time IA community member.

It is this word “community” that Peter adds to the description of Information Architecture that is so important. The other two are Role and Discipline. As a community builder, I totally respect and agree with Peter that the IA Community, the IA Role and the IA Discipline in many ways have different trajectories, but their are tightly aligned by strong gravitational fields. This means that the trajectory of one pulls and gets pulled by the trajectory of the others.

But what is so great about Peter’s new Venn diagram (thank G-d! I haven’t seen a Venn in so long!!!!) is that it at once communicates an important new idea, and demonstrates that Peter is indeed a great IA, by helping to organize new mental models around this knowledge space.

Peter also sticks to the little IA space, which I also appreciate. His definition of IA from the upcoming Polar Bear book is in my mind just broad enough to be inclusive without diluting it to the point of “everything is IA”.

OK, here is where all the warm fuzzies go away …

Why in the world all the focus on IxD?

1. Peter mentions that IA is not included in Bill Moggridges seminal work “Designing Interactions”.
   Uh? Where was an IA when Lisa was born? the mouse? Mac OS 8? What research methods have come out of the IA community?
   The first IA conference was in 2000, no? the Polar Bear book v. 1 was in the late nineties. Bill’s book is looking at the early work designing computers with not too much emphasis on the current stuff. I mean maybe we can include Richard Saul Wurman, but the IA of today resembles very little of what Richard was talking about back then. Being miffed about this is like wondering why there was no mention of the English during a description of how Judaism was born. Just bizarre.
2. 2. Peter calls IxD, IAs younger sibling. What?!?
   Maybe IxDA is IAI’s younger sibling. I would gladly concede that. In fact, I would go one further and say as one of the key founders of IxDA that IAI is an inspiration to those who founded IxDA. But that’s about it. Bill Moggridge coined “Interaction Design” a bit before the polar bear book as in close to a decade. But IxD while not always been called IxD has a very long history in the software & hardware community. It has a much stronger affinity to the HCI/CHI community than IA and is really the practice/design arm of that academic/research oriented discipline.
3. 3. Peter looks at the criticism that Alan Cooper & Robert Reimann give of IA in their book, “About Face 2.0″. (go back to his post for the quote). In it the authors respond to a point in history looking at both their understanding of little IA, and their experience with IA as “practice” (another circle that should be added to Peter’sven diagram). And even reading this today, I most certain have to agree with Alan and Robert and I think while Peter’s version/practice of IA may be stronger now than ever, I do not interpret the practice of the IA discipline that way.
   It is STILL not a design discipline, nor is design coveted as a philosophical practice within the community. Case in point, during my wireframe panel I asked people how many of them do more than 5 renditions at any point in their process? 3? 2? Exploration it turns out is NOT part of IA practice, and a small survey of IA books would confirm that divergent thinking, which is the cornerstone of design practice of the old guard design disciplines is no where to be found in IA. this is a big part of what the above authors are alluding to.

The rest of Peter’s article is sound advice for any IA. It speaks about looking up and sideways to broaden your value proposition to the world and your clients. This is true for any discipline and who could argue with it.

What is missing, is building bridges. Whether it be with IxDA (the first and most natural bridge), or with presentation layer people like Architects, Visual Designers, and Industrial Designers, or with researchers inHCI and Usability, I would content that for any of the younger smaller disciplines in UX that evangelizing and creating relationships with these and with folks in engineering and business is a vital direction for any IA. So instead of trying to “be more” … I would say a better tact might be to “work with more”. don’t extend your role, your community, your discipline, or your practice, but create better interfacing points, more diplomaticavenues, better education opportunities with the people you need to work with now and later.

I have always fought for a notion of little IA as a discipline and believed that in driving that affinity the gravitational field would pull back its community to the same focus. To the contrary I believe in theBigD designer who has a strong breadth of knowledge of all design and supporting disciplines with a strong depth of knowledge into 1 or 2 of them (the classic T or Pi approach). But to do this, requires definitions. Definition create good interfaces for communication b/c communication best succeeds when all in the room are speaking the same well understood language.

As a user experience designer (my title), I focus on IxD, but I can’t do my job without knowing strong IA theory as information is one of the core materials I work with, next to digital behaviors and virtual and physical forms.

I know this has been long, but i want to go back to a piece for a minute. That is community. I started IxDA (with many others) for several reasons, but the biggest one was that no other community felt right. it is that simple. I believe inIxD as a discipline, but I cannot deny that the many discussions I have had over these last few years with people who feel connected to their communities as well that the level of overlap between the different disciplines of User Experience is so strong and compelling that they really can and should all be 1. This is why I have also put so much time and energy intoUXNet–the umbrella organization to User Experience organizations around the world.

On the flip side, my contacts with other UX communities confirms in me that while there is overlap each community has so much to learn from the others and only by having an umbrella organization likeUXNet to guide and channel these opportunities for cross-pollination and support can we really succeed for our customers and their users by designing the best solutions.

I think a lot of the issues that Peter is responding to can actually best be dealt with if everyone really agreed to a true definition of what IA really was. Peter starts out his article with a definition of the discipline, but that does not map against the roles nor the community and finally the practice of IA.

A recent blog post by Jono DiCarlo of
Humanized about dealing with splog brought to mind the above question.

In it they apply the theories of -->

Jared posts his notes from a talk by Bill Buxton who is today a Principal Researcher for Microsoft, up in Boston, reminding me why I have always appreciated Bill’s contributions to the field of IxD.

He articulates in this talk something I’ve been promoting in my own course that I will be teaching for Jared & UIE at the Web Application Summit. about the importance of Sketching.

What I learned from Bill in this piece is a great way to articulate the differentiation between prototyping and sketching. To me this is invaluable, b/c I think it important for designers to realize that artifacts can be in the same technological format, but be so different because of their intention.

Here is how Bill breaks it down:

Sketching vs. Prototyping

The attributes of each are different:

Using the same digital and analog tools I can do both acts, but my intentions and processes around what I am creating are different.

I find that most digital designers struggle with communicating this differentiation.

Daniel Szuc of Apogee in Hong Kong comments on Jared’s piece:

Sketching removes designers/developers from the one on one Design relationship with the PC and electronic tools. It can bring everyone into a place which is familiar and potentially encourages collaboration.

I find this to be a great point especially if we try to keep sketching in the domain of lead/ink to paper/board and off the PC except as recording.

I thought I’d let mey loyal readers know about Humanitarian International Design Organization (HIDO).

Adobe Document Center is a new rich internet hosted application that allows users to maintain a collection of protected documents that can be easily distributed throgh the Internet to any list of recipients you like.

On first gaze it looks awesome. However, I can’t fully use it yet, b/c it requires that I have versions of either Acrobat or Office that I don’t have installed on my work machine any longer. It says MS Office 2003 or better, but it doesn’t allow for my beta version of Office 2007 and I don’t have 7 or 8 Acrobat. I just have the reader or 6.

The interface feels very simple as I was able to easily created my addressbook with groups and created protection policies for use when I distribute which includes rights management and date-based period management.

The interface feels fluid and clean as I would expect for a good Flash-based application. I can’t wait to deconstruct it some more in time for my presentation at the Web Application Summit in Monterey, CA, the week of January 21, 2007.

In his latest Brain Spark, Jared posits that it is maybe not so good to put such a strong focus on “usability”, when what we really need is good DESIGN!!!

Thank you Jared!

I was going to try to do my own tribute to World Usability Day … But David, of Logic+Emotion, did it better than I ever could.

My version would be more like …

1. Users are never wrong. It follows the adage of the customer is always right. But this goes the other way too. Users, you are never to blame for your inability to use the products and services you try.

2. Usability starts deep. It isn’t something to be thought of at the end. Usability is at the core of good design; it is at the core of good business; it is at the core of good technology. No one group is more responsible for usability than any other.

So go out and find out about World Usability Day in your neighborhood, or just do your part to pass on a message about usability to your peers, or to a vendor of a product or service you use.

I haven’t looked into the Raskin Center or followed what Aza Raskin (Jef Raskin’s son) had been up to since his father passed away for quite some time. But in reading my usual blog roll (anyone know a good way to publish an OPML?) the folks at AJAXIAN posted the presentation that Aza gave at the AJAX Experience last week and a follow up blog entry Aza wrote to dig even deeper into the questions surrounding desktops.

Thanx Ajaxian dudes for pointing me back to the world of Raskin. It seems Humanized, the consulting company that Aza is the president of is taking the teachings of papa Jef and putting them into the consulting world for some good stuff.

“Content” is King
At the Ajax Experience Aza’s talk was titled “The Death of the Desktop”. In it he posits that there are a lot of good reasons why we shouldn’t be trying to re-create desktop applications in the web environment. But that’s not what really stood out for me because there are still good reasons that he ignores for holding onto desktop metaphors despite what he would prefer us to do. What really struck me was what he called the 4 things an interface can do:

1. Create content
2. Navigate content
3. Select content
4. Transform content

I was taken aback by the simplicity of this statement and my mind is circling to make sure it can’t be so. Is it really that simple?

Well the only thing I came up with is “display content”, but is “display” implicit in “select” or “navigate”?

I’m also bothered by the use of the term “content”. Is EVERYTHING content? If I’m designing a microwave is the time setting interface a manipulation and management of “content”? Is this simplification of the use of the term content meaning almost anything that you can interact with useful?

One can see it as useful in so far as it simplifies things, which is one of the major premises of the entire Raskin philosophy.

Anyway, I’m not sure what I think about all this yet, but it is definitely worth people thinking and talking about.

8 Rules
In digging on the Humanized web site I got to the “About” page and besides reading the amazing bios of these 4 principals I read their philosophy about designing and evaluating human interfaces. I think they are pretty darn interesting and compelling and well useful:

1. It’s not your fault
   “you” being the user. It is the designer’s fault. I totally agree with this one.
2. Simple things should stay simple
   The best example he gave is the watch and comparing the directions between a digital watch and an analog watch. What is REALLY gained through the added levels of complexity? Why can’t you use the same method for setting a digital watch as an analog one?
3. Fewer choices mean fewer worries
   This is where I’d like to believe but have always had to deal with feature creep. I mean sometimes the options are real and you need to find ways to manage them.
4. Your data is sacred
   Well, Duh!
5. Your train of thought is sacred
   This notion that you can only think of one thing at a time seems a bit off to me as well. But I’m willing to bite harder on this one. I know I personally have a hard time multi-tasking, but I know others who do it really well. But in the context of interaction design, I think this concept of being thoughtful around flow design seems to really resonate with me.
6. Good interfaces create good habits
   I like this one a lot. Interfaces are about learning new ways of expressing yourself and better interfaces are more learnable to the point of becoming second nature than others.
7. Modes cause misery
   I think the notion of “as few as possible” makes sense, which is what is finally expressed towards the end of their explanation, but modes are a necessity. I can’t imagine designing complex interactions without them. The example he gives is the “caps lock” key. But the “shift” key by itself is a temporary mode as well, and I have to ask the question, how would you expect us to change “case” when typing? If modes make sense, they are learnable and thus we can create new habits around them.
8. It’s easy to learn
   Basically, they are just saying that its ok to have to learn an interface and learning isn’t as hard as we are told. I find this rule a bit useless, except to say that learnable interfaces are viable and important. Not quite a “duh!”.

Well, I’m glad that I found Aza’s company and I hope he talks more in the future; maybe at an IxDA conference. Aza, you listening?

I got this off of Core77–an interview with Tom Dair who is co-founder and president of Smart Design.

I particularly like this quote:

We started out as industrial designers, but it’s pretty hard to do product development unless you’re understanding an interactive experience like how somebody would be working a product or going through a series of steps with a product…

It just re-affirms for me how much interaction design is permeating the industrical design space more and more by necessity. Few Industrial Design programs link the two. SCAD’s program is a nice exception to the rule.

In October I sent a shout-out to an article entitled “Web Design is 95% Typography”. Here I point you all to the part 2, that answers a lot of people’s comments and questions.

The part 2 is a good read as well.

When are designers going to finally spend more time on legibility of content and navigation then on emotion. It is so crucial to have this solid base in all sorts of solution sets before moving on to other parts of the puzzle.

I’m letting everyone know that I’m changing jobs post Thanksgiving. I’m a new User Experience Designer for Symbol Technologies.

I’m really excited about working for Symbol and finally working as a interaction designer with both software and hardware. I hope this will add a new layer of depth to my practice as a designer and to the type of writing I do here for you all on this blog.

I like the “elephant in the room” metaphor of this discussion of the changing landscape of application distribution models and development systems. Something any Web/Desktop software designer should be aware of.

This Blog post on Read/Write Web highlights some of the good elephants that you shouldn’t be ignoring.