|
Two must-reads for user experience types at v-2.org. What Lies Beneath, a thoughtful look at what we mean by "business requirements" in the design process. and, perhaps more interestingly Nathan Shedroff, the v-2 interview, where Adam tangles with Nathan on the concepts of information architecture and experience design. Go and read it, and then come back for these thoughts of mine (which I wrote to Adam when he showed me a pre-print): You two often talk at cross-purposes, so your reactions to one another seem
to not really be responding to what the other said. There was an odd antagonistic quality that, while it could have spurred some
good, enthusiastic, debate, instead caused a sort of re-trenching in
existing positions. A discussion like this is in part a failure if neither
side acknowledges that the other side has said something that shifts their
perspective a bit. What we ended up with here is more of a debate (Resolved:
Experience Design is an unnecessary term), with arguments presented. In this
context, that doesn't strike me as satisfying. Nathan has an unfortunately skewed view of Information Architecture and
Information Design, and I don't know exactly from where it springs. Clearly,
he's found himself bitten in the past by people calling themselves
information architects. Also, I suspect Nathan isn't as accommodating of the
deep rigor that IAs bring to projects--even though Nathan's not bad at doing
the Deep Thinking, I tend to think he prefers intuition over discipline. I don't know if I agree with your assertion that ED ought to have some
"explanatory theory," or really what that would accomplish. And it makes me
wonder if IA has some "explanatory theory," 'cause if it does, I haven't
seen it. I see "Experience Design" (tho I prefer "User Experience") as an emergent
field, and, as such, lacking the cohesion or rigor of better-defined fields.
And I don't see a problem with this. I hate this comment from Nathan:
Maybe I'm just being too sensitive, but things feel a lot different from ten
years ago, and not in a good way. Some of the best IAs/IDs I know never
participate in the IA/ID community because of the pervasive attitudes and
the lack of anything new or interesting going on. I think that the IA/ID
community is, mostly, spinning its wheels in terms of growth and
development. It isn't innovating and it is turning more people off than on.
Again, my opinion.
In large part because I don't know what he's talking about. I'm suspect of
his judgment of "the best" IAs/IDs, he's unwilling to really define
pervasive attitudes or sources of this belief, and, if he thinks the
community is spinning wheels, than he hasn't attended the last three
summits. Also, ED is as, if not more, guilty of every single one of these
things. I do think that "information architecture" is largely about "taxonomy and
site maps," though "information architects" often do more. This is a common
problem I have with the discussion, where information architecture is
defined by what self-appointed "information architects" do. I think Nathan's smoking crack if he thinks IAs have "lost stature."
Adaptive Path's experience runs totally contrary to this. And he's smoking
more crack when saying that IAs express "righteous indignation" and
self-entitlement--you've never seen a more chicken-little group of folks
than the attendees of an Experience Design Summit. He's pretty right that most IAs (that I've met) don't know shit about
information theory. (Hell, my understanding is pretty limited, I'm sure.) I
don't know if that's a problem, though. And, the more that LIS informs IA,
the more we'll have this theoretical framework. Definitely the interest in
Ranganathan suggests that LIS theory is informing our work more. I do like your back and forth about the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial, because
it grounds this discussion in a real-world example most of us are familiar
with. More comments when the second part is published...
13 comments so far. Add a comment.
Previous entry: "Nitpicky Academics and the Design of Social Software."
Next entry: "Closing Escrow is in the Air."
Comments:
COMMENT #1
I do have to agree with Nathan's assessment that there is, or was, some stagnation in the IA ranks. Much of this was coming from some experienced IAs. With the onset of some new books, there are some discussions that are beginning to add life, which often leads to new ideas. I tend to disagree with Peter and Nathan on IAs not knowing information theory. I was drawn to the IA community as I found folks in this community that did know info theory, but many were coming from the LIS and information design backgrounds and not so much the user experience and visual design side of things. There are some wonderful folks that have drifted through the IA community that have cog sci understandings that have dropped some nuggets worth following. I tend to agree with both Peter and Nathan on hunches. Breakthroughs to new and better ways of approaching problems come from following hunches. In a world where "it depends" is common thinking critically and following the path that leads away from risks often helps. Often new paths are found from restriction of not being able to take one or two of the normal paths. A user community or a stakeholder may not let the direction follow the usual path, which then involves critical thinking and looking at the 358 other degrees to turn when 90 and 270 are removed as options. I tend to like folks that teach how to problem solve (which Nathan has done and the folks at Vivid pointed many of us in a directions that lead to foundations to help form strong structures for our clients) and not so much how to respond. Often I find the clients enjoy learning and pointing to a page in a book is one answer, but is only helpful if it starts a discussion not shuts up a client.
Posted by vanderwal @ 11/21/2002 08:21 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #2
it's amazing how this community writes and reacts as if we were all in the same room together. i guess the power of information retrieval is showing hardcore... wait a second... wasn't that the gestapo unit of the government in "brazil?" my bad. unfortunate analogy. i've been discussing this same topic, a bit off the cuff, with colleagues on my blog. my personal feeling is that ia has become so "little" ia over the past few years that ux design is really what most of us do out there nowadays anyway. but if that's the case, then why isn't there more press about such a rich, talent heavy, multidisciplinary role as this in the industry? answer: lou hogs all the free airtime ;-) -sean
Posted by Sean @ 11/21/2002 08:22 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #3
Hey, low blow: at least half of my talks of late have been about UX. Which, BTW, ain't equivalent to IA...
Posted by Lou @ 11/22/2002 08:09 AM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #4
Yup; that debate for me almost seemed like two captains fighting away to steer the same ship. In other words: not too fruitful. Makes me think over whether it still holds true what Rettig said two years ago, about it still being too early to draw boundaries in this “new world”. Perhaps so ...
Posted by Jakub @ 11/22/2002 03:31 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #5
Sean brings out a good point in the lack of press about UX or even IA. Part of the problem in the mainstream media is perception. To much of the media the Web was run by kids who did not have a too much of a clue and it will go away to some degree. The problem with the old guard's view is that some of the companies went away, but there was an incredible amount of great lessons learned in the past few years. If anything we learned the Web will not go away and the Internet (digital media tranmissions, which is only in part made up of the Web) will grow. The media also tends to focus on products (technologies in a box) and not so much the soft stuff (UX, IA, etc.), which is harder to critique and put ones finger on. Most good prodcucts are the product of IA and UX (if the user is lucky), but the work that is produced is one scentance if any in a product or site review. It would be a rare day to read in the New York Times: the site really made the convoluted stratifications of the scientific taxonomy easy for the non-annointed to buy their personalized DNA relaxation emulsions, also known as Easy Cream. With the media, what is not said is what it more important. The world of IA and UX is similar to an advance team for an event, if everything runs smoothly their is no mention of the advance team that coordinated all elements of dignitaries tour of a foreign country. IA and UX are part of the preparation of an information application, if we do things right it is a seemless and easy to use site, application, or interactive installation. Most people expect very little from sites, which is why Amazon does rather well as they are a step above their maddening competition. The Apple Switch ads resonate with buyers because of the failures of Microsoft and Intel-based hardware makers to get a seemless, easy to use, and secure device that lead the user to expect failure. IA and UX are the ones that aim for perfection and not to be noticed. The ones that notice are often the practitioners themselves. As far as splitting a community, I think there is any but a split in the community. There is a lot of common ground between the UX and IA community, depending on how you define IA of course. The IA community that focusses on the taxonomy, information theory, information aggregation, search algorythms, etc. does not fit quite as nicely in the UX community as does the visual information structuring and user testing part of the IA role. There is a lot of common ground and each community must work to move its communities forward so they can be recognized as part of the norm. The two communities must also work together to be relevant and share ideas and experience to grow. If the communities do not retain and grow their relevance the mass producers win following only guru mantras and create banal information applications that are about as exciting as a McDonalds hamburger to an adult that enjoys food and thinks.
Posted by vanderwal @ 11/22/2002 07:56 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #6
sorry for the low blow lou. it was definitely meant as a good natured tap. no, i realize ux and ia aren't synonomous. there was a point five years ago, at least over here on the right coast, that the ia role was becoming more similar to ux than not, but you're right, that really isn't the case. ux is still in it's infancy, and until it becomes accredited, we'll probably be bumping heads over a lot of ucd issues...
Posted by sean @ 11/23/2002 07:19 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #7
Really not sure I agree about accreditation, Sean. Over half of the most competent UXD/IA types I know don't have any kind of formal background, diploma, or certificate in the field. I certainly do not (and whether I'm competent or not is not for me to say.) Who's gonna certify me, then? What would the criteria be? "He worked on such and such deliverables for n many sites, including XYZ Brand and 123 Megacorp?" It's not like these are new or novel objections; I recall similar sentiments being aired at the 2001 ASIS&T summit, at which time the clear preference expressed by a room of 30-odd working professionals was "no" to accreditation. OTOH, accrediting itself as th authority on accreditation would provide Asilomar with a clearcut mission. HA! *Just* kidding...
Posted by AG @ 11/23/2002 11:36 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #8
when i mention accredidation, I'm describing a graduate level degree that is a truly interdisciplinary program. the power of such programs, initially, would be to open the eyes of corporations and the IT community to a modern development methodology (focusing on ucd). we all know that's how corporate america works. "most" (and i'm talking about the larger ones) won't make a change (especially in the way they staff, think, operate, etc.) until acedemia gives a stamp of approval. as for existing uxd/ia types, you're absolutely right on spot. we do what we do and simple accredidation would be superfluous in nature. but i'd be the first to go back to campus for an mfa in uxdesign. if not to round out my skills, i'd love to escape this sad market for a couple of years! but be careful what you say about AIfIA man... they're listening. believe me on that one. ha!
Posted by spcoon @ 11/24/2002 01:08 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #9
when i mention accredidation, I'm describing a graduate level degree that is a truly interdisciplinary program. the power of such programs, initially, would be to open the eyes of corporations and the IT community to a modern development methodology (focusing on ucd). we all know that's how corporate america works. "most" (and i'm talking about the larger ones) won't make a change (especially in the way they staff, think, operate, etc.) until acedemia gives a stamp of approval. as for existing uxd/ia types, you're absolutely right on spot. we do what we do and simple accredidation would be superfluous in nature. but i'd be the first to go back to campus for an mfa in uxdesign. if not to round out my skills, i'd love to escape this sad market for a couple of years! but be careful what you say about AIfIA man... they're listening. believe me on that one. ha!
Posted by spcoon @ 11/24/2002 01:08 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #10
mfa in uxdesign
But therein lies the rub, no? MFA or MS? Under the aegis of what department, whose sponsorship? Who speaks for UXDetc. in the academy?
Posted by AG @ 11/24/2002 09:15 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #11
mfa in uxdesign
But therein lies the rub, no? MFA or MS? Under the aegis of what department, whose sponsorship? Who speaks for UXDetc. in the academy?
Posted by AG @ 11/24/2002 09:15 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #12
MFA or MS I came out of Computer Engineering program (somewhat of a bridge between Computer Science and Electrical Engineering) and had choice between BS and BSE. I think one could leave it up to the student to decide. As far as under what department... Computer Engineering program was under College of Engineering while Computer Science was under College of Literature, Science and the Arts. Both CE's and CS's took classes from both colleges. The difference was that the CE's were required to take some hardware oriented classes while CS's were not. Perhaps something like that could be worked out for UX Design between relavent colleges.. say for Univ. of Mich... College of Arts and School of Information. And it wouldn't be a single degree, but rather College of Arts would have MFA in UXD while School of Information would have MS in IA/ID.. where ID has overlaps with UXD, or some mix like that. Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's necessary to entrust the entire spectrum of UX/IA/ID to a single department. The field(s) is(are) large enough that it could be shared and shared well among various departments which would allow room for a bit of options, specialization and focus for students.
Posted by Jin @ 11/25/2002 09:51 AM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #13
i agree with jin 100% the only benefit of the program living solely in an art department, is that the masters degree would allow for teaching w/o gaining a phd. while at syracuse, i attended the school of visual and performing arts and completed the advertising design program. if asked, most people outside of SU (and some within) would say that Newhouse School of Communication is the school where advertising is taught. at the time, the two schools had little communication with one another. one creating the future art directors of the industry, the other the future copywriters/ae's. now the school are actually working together to produce an interdisciplinary degree program. uxd could be handled in a similar fashion quite easily.
Posted by spcoon @ 11/26/2002 08:41 AM PST [link to this comment]
Add A New Comment:
|