IA’s Unidentical Twins

I will need to find a better timeline of this alleged “dot-com” era, because I was not aware that the onslaught of web pages had subsided… In any case, in this fork in the road when Information Architecture split into Findability, which has been unfaithful to it’s parent’s values, and Strategic Information Architecture, apparently the latter has gone less recognized though has been more innovative and useful.

I gather from this article that blogs can foster ill-researched ideas and premature proposals of methods already being explored. I think technology creates such a demand for immediate results, that good design and previous examples may be placed farther down on the list of priorities. Perhaps some contemporary designers are mistaking fresh ideas for ideas that build upon what has already been successful.

In this and other articles, I am seeing a recurrence of the designer’s struggle against marginalization. I feel this is a common problem with anyone working in any aesthetic or fine arts domain.
And though I do not entirely understand the “drunken sailors containment strategy,” I think this relates to the same problem that designers are incapable of solving problems other than visual clarity. I empathize in part with these frightened white collars, since I would not want to hand over a design problem to someone with no design training. I guess like any responsible author, lawyer, or candle stick maker, someone who takes the task at hand seriously also takes the time to understand the whole problem and educate himself in areas outside his expertise.

Ladder of Fire:Unpacking Advocacies

I am always inspired by successful people who end up working in a completely different field than they had planned, and so I enjoyed Merholz’s description of his significant deviation from his degree in anthropology. I’ll refrain from citing Forrest Gump with his box of chocolates here, but it’s true life and careers can take surprising turns. Like him, I also don’t want to be defined by what my diplomas say.

During his attempt to define his company Adaptive Path, Merholz alludes to the ongoing evolution of the word design as producing more than visual appeal. This may well tie into the growing industries such as Service Design and Information Architecture that strive to better the user experience, consulting myriad of other discplines in researching their design problem.

It seems to me Merholz is saying his current success developed from experience. His education came from observing others’ design work and what made it successful or not, listening to what his audiences had to say on sites such as Epinions, and simply working for a diverse group of companies. It’s almost as if he gradually used design methodology to education himself in design!

The “MacDonaldization” of design is a frustrating reality that unfortunately comes with living in a society where some feel entitled to certification in exchange for a fee. I feel the growing number of online courses, design workshops undermine the integrity of those who have worked longer and harder to receive the same credit. There is a definite distinction of showing interest in another discipline and claiming to have achieved the same knowledge overnight. Borrowing, sharing, and influencing other areas is wise, but so is focusing on one’s career of choice, striving to become an expert so as to better offer well-researched advice.

As the reader, I must say I, too, was thoroughly confused by the two heart surgeon scenarios. Sometimes metaphors are gratuitous fluff that make no sense.

I agree to a certain extent about Merholz’s criticisms of success, that is to say it certainly should not be measured by awards or a favorable opinion of whoever is paying the bill. He then speaks, though provides no example, of waiting until the the end result delivers “real value.” Though as a student with little power and experience, I sometimes wonder at what point a designer knows when to speak up when they see something is not working and when to do the best he/she can given their unique situation/constraints, and produce what the client asks for, and call the project a success…

“Wurman Uncut: A Conversation with Richard Saul Wurman”

It seems Wurman took quite a novel approach to teaching: “I always teach from my ignorance and what I want to learn about.” I often hear the best way to truly understand your subject is through teaching, so perhaps Wurman’s method reinforces his understanding and retention of new information. In some of my past courses I think professors forgot how difficult it was to grasp new concepts, especially after teaching a subject for many years.

Wurman says “Great architecture is sometimes referred to as frozen music. I would like to think of my books as being frozen conversations.” The latter statement is puzzling to me, because I think of conversations as filled with all sorts of confusing signals to misinterpret such as intonation, gestures and expressions, and meaningless formalities necessary to polite, politically correct dialogue. Contrarily, I would hope a successful information architect strives to communicate in as concise and clear a langauge as possible.

In his surprising criticism of AIGA, Wurman implies the organization is more concerned with aesthetics than content. This reminded me of 1964’s “First Things First, a Design Manifesto” and the struggle of reputable designers to improve their image and take responsiblility for what their design is communicating. While aesthetics are certainly important, the knowledge shared through design, even so subtle as a subliminal message of awareness sent to the unsuspecting audience, is a true sign a success.

Wurman truly validates my sentiments of high school. I am still asking myself just how much useful knowledge I gathered from the whole painful experience.

I agree that television and film are not all robbing us of brain cells. I have a few shows I am faithful to, I also cannot stand reality TV, and I agree that as with many domains, there are examples of terrible failures and beautiful, inspiring stories that should be celebrated.

At one point, VanPatter says that criticism of Wurman comes with the territory. Some say that criticism is a form of flattery, which I think is true because it’s a sign you’re proactive and people are taking notice of your work. You can never please everyone, and I think a lot of the more hateful critics are only seeking publicity than offering useful advice.

I don’t suppose Wurman will be offering a $4000+ (!!!) scholarship to his EG conference, so a visit to his simplfied site (FYI: http://www.eg2006.com/) will have to suffice as my vicarious experience…