ken writes

Christina,
I was surprised to see this on your weblog today:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. "It's the content, stupid" Duh on an epic level. Why do people come to a website? Because there is something there for them. Most often that something is that mysterious thing called content. ...

The most beautiful hand-crafted raku ceramic cup in the world is useless if it leaks. ...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I thought people were cluing in to the idea that people don't visit a site just for its content. If they did, we wouldn't need graphic designers, illustrators, interaction designers, and writers - who all give a site its particular look and editorial slant. Given all the choices, why do I read your weblog, but not eightface.com? Yours looks good. It has a personality. Even if every usability blog had the same content, presentation matters. I believe, though I don't expect everyone else to believe it, that presentation actually matters more than what you say.

Your poor leaky raku cup certainly does has a purpose; why else do you keep it? (Why else would people keep making raku cups? Raku isn't really suited for use as liquid containers.) Its purpose may not be to deliver coffee to your mouth, but it brings you pleasure in other ways, right? If you want coffee, you pick another cup. If you want beauty, nostalgia, warmth of feeling, you pick up the beautiful one.

So content isn't king, as we used to say in the 90s. It's one member of a committee, maybe: depending on the committee's purpose, it might be the chair or it might be the one they keep asking to go fetch donuts.

Best,
ken

=====
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ken mohnkern http://www.geocities.com/kem/
"do what you're doing."

2/13/2001 07:24:15 AM | link

be your own mentor

Request: "I was wondering if there is anyone out there looking to mentor another Information Architect. While I believe I have the basics down, regularly assume leadership responsibilities in defining the Information Architecture process & methodology at my current & past employers, and have in fact mentored junior IA's, I'm looking for someone to help me extend my expertise and focus my professional development. Because there are so few of us who focus on Information Architecture & the User Experience, I have actually been offered V-level & directorship positions. Frankly, I'm afraid. Of course I'm flattered and anxious to build my resume, but I don't want to extend too far beyond my level of proficiency."

Response: "I was in your same shoes a while ago. I was looking and looking for a mentor, but there was no one-- no one who knew more than me and who also had the time/inclination to mentor. I decided to become my own mentor. I read books, surfed the lists, gave myself goals, had lunch or breakfast with anyone and everyone I could, joined other IA's in their work, and learned from the people I was mentoring (everyone in the world can teach you something).

It sounds like to me the world is telling you you don't need a mentor. maybe it's time to take a big scary chance and step up to the plate and take that VP job. Perhaps instead of one mentor, you can create a kind of "board of advisors" of senior people you can call on for advise when things get hairy. I have one of those, it includes a couple creative directors, a few senior IA's, an engineer, a woman who owns her own company and a couple book authors on web subjects. These folks are there when I'm perplexed, or need a hand with advice/references/etc.

I think we as women are particularly susceptible to not taking risks like men do, and are often afraid to go for jobs when we aren't a perfect match for the job description. I've seen guys fake it through interviews, then madly read up on the job they went for and teach themselves on the job. Worse yet, I've seen guys fake it to get the job, and fake it through the job. I think this everytime I am faced with a challenge I'm scared of. And then I get mad, and I go for it. It's usually very hard when I take these big steps, and I get horribly stressed, I get insomnia, I cry-- and then I've done it, I figure it out and I have one more thing under my belt and I'm another rung up the ladder.

Anytime you're really scared, go for it. Every time you beat that fear, you get tougher."

2/12/2001 10:51:05 PM | link

Andrés Sulleiro writes

I've talked quite a bit with some of my colleagues in Europe saying that "yea, ASIS&T is great, but we need something in Europe too."

Have we outgrown ASIS&T? Perhaps. I still think we have a lot to benefit from it, however, some people say the SIGIA is too "librarian-centric". I think there needs to be a more consolidated IA organization. Maybe an International IA organization with chapters all over the world."

I quite agree. I'd love to see a more international look at Web Design in general, and Information Architecture in specific. The HCI folks had their summit in Amsterdamn last year-- perhaps we should follow their lead.

Meanwhile, is it time for ISIS&T?

2/11/2001 07:38:15 PM | link

reflection and responses

1. "The word "modularity" recurs in people's discussions" Peter notes. Noticed this too, and the only thing about that that surprised me was that it took so long for folks to jump on the modularity bandwagon. One of the main goals of the rational rose process is achieving modularity and reusable pieces. The rational process was sweeping the web development community, what a year and a half ago? longer? Information Architects need to get better at stealing and adapting. Software developers are frequently solving the same sort of problems we are: speedy scalable solutions to complex unique problems. While it may be true that "if you ask a engineer a question you'll get code for an answer," I think its time for us to look at their solutions and see how many can be adapted to our problems.

2. "It's the content, stupid" Duh on an epic level. Why do people come to a website? Because there is something there for them. Most often that something is that mysterious thing called content. Our jobs as IA's are to find the best way to get people to that thing they are seeking. We may get excited about adaptive architectures, bottom-up hierarchies or limited vocabularies-- but these are nothing but systems to connect point A (user) with point B (thing user wants.) It's that simple. I can't figure out why people are continually surprised that content is important.

The most beautiful hand-crafted raku ceramic cup in the world is useless if it leaks. It's an object of beauty, people may pay a large sum for it but then it sits on the shelf. A simple porcelain coffee cup will be held every day if it holds a good amount of coffee, keeps it warm, is comfortable in the hand and most importantly, deliver the coffee to the user's mouth. However, that cup is not used if there is no coffee in the house. You can make a beautiful site, you can make a highly usable site, but if there is no content there, it has no purpose.

No coffee in cup=cup is paperweight.
No content in site=site is useless.

(there are obviously exceptions for certain types of web applications)

3. "We're seeing the beginnings of a movement in the importance of developing conceptual models in design."

I remember Peter asking the CHI-WEB list about them the same time I was trying to develop one for a project I was working on at Hot. His post saved me. I agree 100% with Mr. Me's insight that they are invaluable to creating a usable system. When you have a clear idea of how you are going to express the workings of a system to the user, you know better what elements of the architecture to surface. I think a conceptual model should be a key deliverable of any architecture. Be sure to read Don Norman's post on conceptual models.

4. "Working With Clients, Not At Them" Well, I wish this was a duh. But too many agencies treat their clients as if they were misguided fools whose first coherent thought was being smart enough to hire the agency.

It ain't so.

They know the business better than you do. You can try to catch up by reading all their materials and books on the field your client works in-- but what project gives you time to do that? better to listen to your client educate you on their area of expertise. Sure, as an outsider you may come up with something they haven't thought of. You may also come up with something they have thought of, and discarded as impractical. By collaborating with the client, you can figure out which are which before you go down the long path of creating a presentation to sell something they knew wouldn't work six months ago.
Collaborating with the client insures a higher chance of your ideas gaining acceptance and getting implemented. I've heard too many agency folks say "Gosh, we created a great design for them, I wonder why it never went live." Perhaps if they had worked with their clients, they might know what worked and what didn't. At the least, they'd feel comfortable enough to call up and ask what happened...

Victor over at Noise Between Stations offers some advice on how to collaborate with clients effectively.

Trends Peter Missed

1. It's a Small World. IA is not only no longer a Californian profession, it is no longer an American profession. We were graced with European representatives at the conference, and I've been lucky enough to get emails from IAs in France, Italy, Spain and Germany. Perhaps it's time for an international professional organization? Or at least a conference abroad, to bring together our fellows?

2. Open Source IA. More and more IAs are clamoring to see each other's diagrams and deliverables. What I find interesting is that we can finally see some examples of documentation online-- because the market has gone sour and IA's have to put their portfolios online. Well, wrong reasons, right results.

There is also a growing frustration in the multiplicity of terms for the same things. How long can we keep calling our page architectures wireframes and schematics and page requirements? Until we can talk to each other, this profession can't go anywhere. Please read the glossary and unless you simply cannot stand a term, adopt it.

3. IA is getting into bed with HCI. Keith Instone's joining Argus and the influx of IA's onto the CHI-WEB list were the early signs. User-centered design has become such a byword in our profession Peter Morville referred to it as jargon in his talk. Companies from Inverse Ratio to Carbon IQ are so convinced of the connection they specialize in it (disclosure moment: I am part of CIQ.) Jared Spool, usability guru, was the keynote speaker at the ASIS&T conference. It's all coming together.

4. IAs want out of their little box. Andrea Gallagher gave a talk on connected devices, pointing out the need for information architecture in varied devices from cell phones to exercise machines. I heard more than one voice expressing the desire to attack product design, from chairs to airplane interiors. One IA waxed rhapsodical over voicemail systems and longed to design call centers. More and more IAs are working on software, wireless and wayfinding systems. The web is a nice big sandbox, but I think most IA's will only be satisfied with the whole Sahara.

5. We are tired of talking about what an Information Architect is. We aren't tired of talking about what an Information Architect does. Andrew Dillon and Andrea Gallagher both admitted they are no longer concerned where to draw the line between IA, interaction design, information design and the like. That they used to worry over the definition of the role, and now those concerns have vanished. I guess we are IAs and we know IA when we see it. Nice to see we are getting over our adolescent identity crises.

2/10/2001 07:48:21 AM | link

we tease you a lot, but...

2/8/2001 08:57:19 PM | link

asist me

Erik, IA at music bank, came up and said "I've found my tribe."

Apart from the general good feelings of a community get together, I will say this conference is different from the Boston conference a year ago. There is a general attitude of "let's quit fucking around here." They could have titled this "pragmatic information architecture" rather than "practicing information architecture" I think the market climate has given people an certain impatience with the theoretical and a desire to get down to brass tacks: how do you actually accomplish what you do, how do you help your client understand their business model, how do you work more quickly and effectively? What do deliverables look like, what do we call them? How do we sell IA? It's time to stop navel gazing, and get on with things.

Saturday night I facilitated for Jesse James Garrett's talk on "what do you do all day," a group discussion on our roles and responsibilities. It was educational. Even though our core responsibilities are pretty alike (site organization, content architecture and interaction design) our outlying skills were many: information design, project management, coding prototypes, user testing-- and sadly many of these things were being done by IA's because "otherwise they won't get done" or "I understand what has to be done better than anyone else so I do it." I don't have to say it do I? These are the wrong reasons, people. This is why we end up working 12 hour days. We are control freaks. We need to cut it out.

Jesse said it best "The less you do, the better you'll do it."

more to come.... I'm tired!

2/4/2001 07:46:20 AM | link

return of the webmaster

One: Jeff is so very right about things that I hold deeply true and have never been successful in convincing folks I work with, including the superiority of liquid design, the inevitability that pages will never look how you designed them, that speed is paramount and pages should be designed to load gradually and that text should be in html, pictures in graphics.
Now I am just praying this becomes everyone's bible, and these debates I still have will stop happening.

Two. Jeff Veen is the last of the webmasters. The webmaster was the guy back in the beginning of the web who knew a little about everything and could put out a site site from design to writing of the copy to html and graphics crunching. Then the webmaster lost writing and design, then engineering took over the coding (which ended up being so much more than html) and pretty soon the webmaster had dissolved into other jobs. In many ways this is a good thing. The great loss is there is no person who really holds all these pieces in his/her head. Producers and information architects are two "generalists" who have stepped up into aspects of this role, though neither of them holds the geeky piece that no one seems to properly value. How can you create without understanding the nature of your medium? Jeff's book shows the value of understanding the big picture.

2/3/2001 08:10:53 AM | link

quote of the day

now in french, suitable for framing. ooh la la

2/2/2001 12:16:57 PM | link

personalize this

It was bought for me on my birthday from amazon.com by the ever lovely peter merholz. Get on the ball guys, collaborative filtering doesn't work unless your systems are collaborating. At least they've stopped trying to sell me The Design of Everyday Things after I rated it five times.

2/2/2001 07:23:05 AM | link

returning to random mischief

amihotornot.com is a bizarre phenomon. once you start clicking, you can't stop.

2/2/2001 12:01:36 AM | link