[spam] Re: The Value of "IA" or Whatnot, was Re: [Sigia-l] The New Nielsen?

[Peter Merholz]

> So we don't get to say "it's all about seeking" and dot
> along merrily to that single solution. We have to understand
> user+business+medium and work from there. We have to do the hard work of
> thinking. It also means we don't do the "ooh, design magic, ooh."
>
> Please do read Don's article-- aesthetics genuinely and measurably improve
> performance. it's all about the ROI of design.
>
> http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Emotion-and-design.html

So. You have contradicted yourself.

You posited that Paula's point that the value proposition of the web is
"finding" and "doing" was at best incomplete, citing entertainment,
expression, etc., and the tone and frustration suggested Paula's point was
wrong-headed.

You then point to Don's article. All Don's points deal with task-oriented
design. His argument has little, really, to do with the discussion we've had
here. Don is addressing the "how," whereas our discussion was dealing with
the "what." The "what" was designing in support of finding or doing vs
design in support of other more nebulous goals. Don only talks about how
designing with affect in mind can support the cognitive processes of doing.

It feels like Don's essay was raised in order to try to present some kind of
trump card. Though, as Victor pointed out on your site, his is hardly
original thinking:
http://www.eleganthack.com/archives/002851.html#006445

Within our community, we've had research that has told us that aesthetics
matter in perception. Andrew Dillon gave a talk at the first IA Summit and
at the IA2000 conference that dealt with the quality of aesthetics and
emotion in usability. You can read about it as summed up in his new paper,
"Beyond Usability."
http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~adillon/publications/beyond.htm

I'm not in anyway arguing for the design of things to be aesthetically
mediocre. What I am arguing for is that this community must take
responsibility in understanding and promoting the value of its efforts, and
that that value is intimately intwined with a person's ability to "find" or
"do." *How* we enable people to "find" and "do" is a separate matter (and
very important one).

But, again, I fear talks of aesthetics and emotion and that which seems
unmeasurable will allow folks to neglect these necessary discussions. Don
says it better than I do:

    "I can hear it now: 'Hey, Norman says it's OK
     to be pretty,' and off people go, feeling free
     to ignore decades of work by the usability
     community. That's the wrong lesson to learn
     from this essay.

     There are many designers, many design schools,
     who cannot distinguish prettiness from usefulness.
     Off they go, training their students to make things
     pleasant: façade design, one of my designer friends
     calls it (disdainfully, let me emphasize). True
     beauty in a product has to be more than skin deep,
     more than a façade. To be truly beautiful, wondrous,
     and pleasurable, the product has to fulfill a useful
     function, work well, and be usable and understandable."

To me, "useful function" means supporting "doing."

--peter