I recently attended the Information Architecture Institute Idea 2008 Conference, October 7-8 in Chicago. The theme of the conference was ” . . . on designing complex information spaces of all kinds.”
What was intriguing about this particular conference was the diversity of people, both in professional and geographic terms. There were graphic designers, interaction designers, technical leads, managers, and oh yes . . . “information architects.” What was interesting about the attending information architects was that they came from so many backgrounds to become an information architect. There were actual classically trained architects that became IA’s, there were designers that were IA’s and so on.
When Richard Saul Wurman coined the term Information Architect in the late 1980′s, he was an architect that was designing travel books (Access Press) and came up with a term for designers that created information intensive artifacts. Since we cannot really agree on what the exact meaning of “information” and “architect”, I have come to the conclusion that merging the words into a concept would be difficult having hired several IA’s professionally. There is little agreement of what an IA is, and even what their outputs are. This was evident at the Idea conference, that there was no attempt in defining the term.
The first speaker was blogger David Armano who spoke on “Micro-Interactions in a 2.0 World.” A well-known and dynamic speaker, David took participants down a very rapid terrain of design, marketing and business through technological innovations. His central premise is that we are moving from passive consumers to active participants through existing social architecture technologies – not custom applications. Since all of our devices are internet enabled, the notion of a traditional browser experience is giving way to smaller more intimate digital apps that do one or two things. We as users cross-link these apps together. He used the term “life streams” to name this process of “engage, enable, and empower” our actions through a model of “usefulness, utility and ubiquity.” David also articulated new digital ecosystems such as the Nike Touch which uses “engagement” of “deposits” and “withdrawls” with several micro-functionalities bundled together. Social networks by their very nature amplify communications and he asked the audience what their “passion point” was.
Elliott Malkin, an artist from New York discussed “Information in Space.” His passionate and precise presentation went down a very indirect route that got me very excited. His initial metaphor was the hassidic concept of an eruv, or a physical demarkation between a secular world and a religious world using the same space. He referred to this psychographic space as having strong conceptual power for the intended group and for what for most people would not even notice. Unfortunately, I thought he was going to bring the metaphor back to digital technology and social architecture, but instead he discussed using digital technology to create a virtual eruv that could be monitored without rabbi’s going out to check if the eruv physical demarcations were intact. The implications of this metaphor in discussing how a shared space could have unique “functionalities” for different groups at the same time holds great promise.
Jesse James Garrett of Adaptive Path presented “Envisoning the Future of the Web.” They worked with the Mozilla Foundation in exploring the future of web browsers. Their concept is called Project Aurora. Now, when dealing with the future of anything, especially technology, it is difficult since we tend to use established conventions and behaviors and link it to a future that people can understand. Star Trek did it best by taking human behaviors and linking them to technologies that did not necessarily need to describe their inner workings. As viewers, especially hooked viewers, we understood the galactic federation model and the value system of the show to put the expressions and technologies in context.
With the future of a browser, Adaptive Path focused on augmented reality, or the overlay of digital information on the real world where there will be data abundance and the question will be how to we visualize, focus and manage all of it cognitively and socially. Processing power, storage capacity, bandwith and graphic capabilities of computers will impact how we interact with each other through the digital cloud. “Context awareness,” “natural interaction,” and “continuity” would allow for more natural collaborations. Each of us would have a semantic profile and with geolocation, would allow for very rich interactions between people where ever they are. Two main questions arose from the audience. What was the time horizon of Project Aurora? Jesse stated they had a 10 year window into the future (this would be the equivalent of 40 years in technological terms). He said they had to balance “compelling” with “plausible” in their vision. My view was that their vision was too contemporary and linked to current “plausible” scenarios. The second question was that their concept could be viewed that the browser was an operating system. Jesse made it clear that they did not want to address the operating system vs. browser question, but in my mind the two converge in their scenario.
Chris Crawford a former game designer for Atari presented an interesting perspective on “Linguistic User Interfaces.” His perspective on intelligent systems is that smart computers that could interact with humans using extensive language patterns is not realistic. This is due to the Sapir/Wharf hypothesis that inside the human mind language and reality exist together. Chris’ interesting take is that with games, a model for a computer to interact with humans is much more manageable since the worlds are much smaller. He further elaborated that software, verbs define the program and is core to the human/computer interface. With most current software, as the verb count increases, accessibility and expectability reduces. 100 verbs is the limit for most users. Chris is currently developing a linguistic user interface (LUI) for programs that can create stories. I found his perspective very compelling.
Alberto Canas, of the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) presented a surprising presentation called “From Meaningful Learning to a Network of Knowledge Builders.” IHMC has created the popular language mapping program CMAP, which I have on my computer. What was informative about his presentation on CMAP were examples of its application (pun intended). Knowledge essentially are concepts that are linked together with prepositions to make a relationship (this was a wonderfully simple definition). Humans have created written language to describe concepts that cannot easily be illustrated. CMAP are concept maps linked by phrases to form propositions. I already knew this in principle. Alberto then showed the power of CMAP through an ongoing project with the Panamanian government giving school children CMAP to describe their lives. The power of CMAP is that users can link images and web page addresses to their maps and can also link concept maps to other concept maps. They are essentially mini-websites which are non-linear. I will not look at CMAP the same way and believe that its potential is not fully understood by a large cross section of users.
Jason Fried, founder of 37signals presented a lucid lecture called “Getting Real.” I had not heard Jason before, but am a heavy user of Basecamp and a real fan of its simplicity and how reliable it is. Jason is a real visionary and their development process flies in the face of every convention that most digital consultancies use. They do not “plan” anything, do no “specification” documents, and do not use “actor or personas.” They focus on building things and figure out how to do it over time. Keep things small, use sharpie markers as the finest resolution when sketching ideas, and only have a core set of functions (a simple core). Part of me was aghast, but I quickly saw the logic to their process. If you are designing for yourselves and then find users, the 37signals model is perfect. Unfortunately, if you collaborate with clients to define the problem and then facilitate understanding, then the 37signals model will not work. However (you knew there was going to be a “but”) I totally agree with his concept of “scratching your itch” and doing things with passion.
Aradhana Goel of Ideo gave one of the most thought provoking presentations called “Emerging Trends, Design Thinking, Service Innovation.” We have all heard of IDEO and it is one of the most influential innovative firms (along with Pentagram) merging design and engineering. Aradhana was trained as an architect and has only recently become involved with service design. Her perspective on human factors was clear and in alignment with my understanding. What was powerful was her ideas around linking human factors with trend factors. Human factors focus on digging into context, while trend factors find the context. She went on to compare and contrast these two areas and how service design is a logical next step in productizing intangible experiences.
Bill DeRouchey of Ziba Design gave a very direct and engaging discussion on “The Language of Interaction.” His deconstruction of everyday visual clues that we take for granted and their constant reinterpretation and reapplication to other situations was informative, common sense, but insightful.
Overall, there were several key themes that all speakers seemed to focus upon:
1) Browsers are giving way to other internet enabled experiences
2) Windows, Icon, Mouse, Pointer system is under stress
3) Transaction is more than money
4) Link several apps, not one killer app
5) Focus on experiences, not just interactions
Upon reflection, I found this conference very fulfilling and reinforced certain convictions, challenged others and provided a very positive mental workout for me (which is what good conferences should do). I would like to compliment IAI for the organization of the conference and the lunches with different groups of people was enjoyable. There were twelve speakers in two days, interspersed with group lunches around the Chicago loop.
The IAI did not go down an exististential vortex of what an information architect is or is not (though it came close at times), which would have been a divisive and somewhat unimaginative exercise. Instead they linked together several strains of interesting ideas and left the participants to decide what it meant to them.
All video presentations are available at Boxes and Arrows.
Posted by akallish on October 22, 2008
During some recent digging (we do that alot) we stumbled across the Microvision wearable display. At $10K per unit they aren’t ready for consumer consumption yet, but the concept looks compelling. Basically they are using their pico projector technology to bounce lasers on your eyes. Sounds dangerous but they seem to disagree.
Microvision has a very good questions and answers page where Ben Averch (Global Product Manager, Wearable Systems) talks about the value of Augmented Reality and how the data of the future will be accessible anywhere and any time. Great job Ben and Microvision. We want one now!
Posted by Joseph Juhnke on September 19, 2008
Nate Burgos sent me a link about a new institute that is being created between Stanford University and the Hasso-Plattner-Institute to investigate design thinking. They defined it as a methodology that “melds an end-user focus with multidisciplinary collaboration and iterative improvement to produce products, services or experiences.” Their theme is – innovation – which is no surprise.
This got me to think about how this term has fluctuated since I heard it twenty years ago. My approach to the topic was around several attributes:
Wicked Problems
A Focus on Customers/Users
Finding Alternatives
Ideation and Prototyping
Qualitative Performance
The question is how is design thinking different from other types of thinking? If we take a Western European approach to thought, then critical thinking models revolve around observation, asking questions, research, making new connections and creating a model that integrates new insights.
If you agree with this foundation, then there would be little differentiation between design thinking and other forms of thinking. Can non-designers do design thinking? What is the role of the designer if design thinking is practiced by a wide variety of disciplines and professions?
What has remained constant about design thinking is linked to an improved future. Victor Margolin, in his book The Politics of the Artificial stated “Design is continuously inventing its subject matter, so it is not limited by outworn categories of products. The world expects new things from designers, that is the nature of design”
I used to have conversations with fairly progressive designers twenty years ago about design thinking and that design was as much about frameworks, strategies and approaches as about media artifacts. At the time, they were not ready to embrace this idea and only wanted cursory approaches that could add more legitimacy to the making. Contemporary designers have finally embraced in enough of a critical mass that design is as much about thinking as making.
A few years ago John Thackara proposed to the London Design Council the Project Red Initiative which would have the UK design community address specific social, political and economic issues facing the United Kingdom. The backlash from the design community that the initiative was not in the bounds of design.
The good news is that design thinking, design methods, and design management are all coalescing to create new opportunities for designers to collaborate effectively with other professions around wider areas of interest that are not discipline specific.
Designers have an ability to interact with the the unknown, and the shifting relationships between the meaning of things. This new type of designer is linking design (as a plan) to outcomes that are not necessarily objects. It is here that methodology can help and this is where design thinking comes into play.
Maybe there is hope after all.
Posted by akallish on August 22, 2008
Second Life (SL), one of the first successful virtual worlds, was released in the wild in 2003. Some of us have avatars born in 2006. As part of our continuing exploration of the future of digital, we have decided to build a virtual office / meeting place / retreat in second life, and where better to build but on the waterfront. SL shares a lot of common traits with RL (real life); one being beachfront property is expensive and coveted. Needless to say, the auction was a very exciting event and we may have set a new record for the price paid for virtual soil. We now own approximately 10,000 square meters of virtual land in Second Life. Construction and landscaping begins today.
Posted by Joseph Juhnke on August 3, 2008
I talk about this technology with just about everyone I meet. I think it’s amazing and will change the way we share data. See the Ted presentation below.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129
Imagine a collective visual database that allowed you to explore remote locations in a holographic environment. Now imagine 50 years from now and how this growing knowledgebase may provide us with the ability to travel back in time to tour buildings that no longer exist or watch the birth of a long deceased family member.
Pause for dramatic effect.
Wow!
Posted by Joseph Juhnke on February 7, 2008
Merlin Mann recently gave a talk to the folks at Google about his Inbox Zero process for managing high volume inboxes (www.inboxzero.com). While Merlin’s talk was entertaining and well done, I have to be honest, I was left feeling a little underwhelmed by his overall message. He says himself his method is simple common sense and that’s what it is. Luckily, I chose not to end my journey there. Desperate as I was for any help with the hundreds of emails I get a day (some at the talk claimed an unfathomable 600-a-day!) I decided to give Inbox Zero a try. I’m happy to say there’s no turning back now; I am officially a fan and I learned something about myself along the way.
The basic premise is the practice of scheduled email processing sprints (short 5-10min) with the goal of getting messages out of your inbox. There are five actions you can do to any message: delete, delegate, defer, respond (only if you can do it in a few lines), and archive. You may be wondering why it is so important to get email out of your inbox? It’s all about your state-of-mind and the impacts are huge. I had no idea the weight my inbox placed on my life as I spent the entire day using it as a to-do list and watching messages come in minute-by-minute to be responded to in near real-time. Managing my email took so much time I often found myself looking at the clock wondering where the day had gone. Some days I had no time to do my job (or at least the fun parts). The one thing I did get from my email-as-chat behavior was stress, giant fattening scoops of it. Stress has been a very big issue in my life as of late with a new baby, a growing business, a new house being manhandled by contractors, and Russian bomber flights resuming. To my surprise, my wife noticed a change the day I started practicing Inbox Zero. She keeps telling me how much calmer I am now.
The benefits of Inbox Zero don’t end there for me, I learned a little about myself along the way. As I started processing emails, I discovered some actions happened more frequently than others. To some extent this is supposed to be the case, but I don’t think my order is, well, optimal. Take a look for yourself. Here is my current processing ranking:
- Delete – My most common action is delete, as it should be. Most messages are meant to get information into your head and once it’s there, they have no further purpose.
- Defer – This might seem like a bad thing, but the truth is once I finish my email sprint, I can return to thinking about the projects I’m working on and as I work on each of them, I can dig into my Action folder and address the emails relevant to that project. The act of scheduling your day (or NOT allowing your inbox to schedule your day) is very empowering. Deferred messages go into my first of two sub folders titled “Action” awaiting my further attention. My action folder is holding at about 25 messages right now, but never fear, it’s easy to prioritize and respond to a list that short. Obviously my goal is to have zero defers, but I’m not in a rush. Wow that felt good to say. There is room for improvement here, however. As I practice my craft I hope to reduce the number of messages I need to defer. Instead shifting more weight onto the other processing actions.
- Respond – Respond is my third most common action, but significantly less common than the first two. As I mentioned above, most messages are meant to get information into your head. Many of the messages that require response can be satisfied with one or two sentences. No time for a novel that someone else doesn’t have time to read. I delete most messages after I respond.
- Archive – Emails that contain information I may need for future reference go into the second of my two sub folders, my “Archive” folder. The search tools in Outlook and Mail.app are pretty fierce and much more efficient than searching categorized folders. I used to keep all project emails to CMA (sorry not the Country Music Awards) but looking back, I’ve never ever needed one of them so now I just say no. Also, now that I detach attachments from all emails, I archive very few messages as a file backup. I feel like I used to be a pack rat, my email used to own me: not anymore.
- Delegate – The action I do least frequently is passing on work to … wait a minute!
Here’s where the bump on my head starts pushing the anvil towards the sky. Delegate is last? This is not good. As a Director working with a whole bunch of extremely talented folks who can do most everything better than me, it’s a bad thing when the last thing I do is delegate. My job description starts with the word delegate. So what do I do now? Well the first thing I’m going to do is go through my Action folder and delegate as much of that work as I can. After that I’m working very hard to increase my delegation ranking. I’ve done some thinking about why this pattern formed and I’ve boiled it down to my control freakish nature. That means I will have to pay special attention that I don’t slip back into this pattern. CFS is a sneaky sneaky disease. Hopefully now that I’ve admitted there is a problem, I will find the road to recovery. Isn’t it strange where and how you learn about yourself? Maybe Inbox Zero won’t solve your woes, maybe it will. I can only recommend frequent questioning and exploration of your daily activities as a means of learning more about yourself. Thank you Merlin Mann!
Posted by Joseph Juhnke on August 19, 2007
Greetings from Beijing. Between jet lag and merciless schmoozing, I’ve been unable to get to posting as frequently as I’d hoped. Here’s an update:
- I have still not slept an entire night. My body clock is definitely discombobulated but I think it’s on London time. Hmmmm.
- The Conference opened on Tuesday with a Plenary Session that included an interesting speech by Dr. Takeo Kanade. He’s done some interesting stuff, including the robotic camera system used to take the matrix like shots of players in the Super Bowl. His area of focus right now is Digital Human Modeling. His premise is that the human is the weakest link in a system and therefore we should spend a good deal of time modeling human behavior and construction digitally. He’s already done some work cataloging and modeling human feet, hands, and gestures for a number of commercial clients. He created a machine that electronically scans feet (think 3D CAT scan) and provides an accurate shoe size. This machine is creating a huge database of the shapes of human feet. Dr. Kanade hopes to create a database of how feet change over 30 years of growth and use. He’s helped auto manufacturers create a passive monitoring system that can accurately predict what control you are going to touch based on the motions you begin making and your kinetic structure. My favorite project is a web site that allows mothers in Japan to describe a room in their house and then tell them all of the ways their child can get hurt in it. It’s part of his QoLT program. Apparently it’s quite popular. No English translation yet.
- Wednesday provided some very interesting sessions including HCI for Aviation, Social Computing, Smart Living Spaces, “Neurotechnology and Augmented Cognition Applications: Present and Future” and more.
- We had the most amazing Peking (Beijing) Duck for Lunch. Our friend Chong speaks Cantonese and found a famous restaurant about 5 minutes ($1.50 cab ride) from the Olympic Crater (are they really going to be ready for next summer?).
- I’ve finally got a presentation that I am proud of. No more nitpicking in PowerPoint for this guy.
- It’s 6:30 AM so now I have to go through my very artificial morning ritual.
That’s my report for now. This has definitely been an interesting expedition.
Posted by Joseph Juhnke on July 25, 2007
Recent Comments