[Sigia-l] The Menace

[Derek R]

>| I know everyone is thinking it, but apparently
>| I'm the only one brave enough to ask:
>|
>| What is the @#!!$#@! AIfIA doing 


Well, now. A human stepping-out of sheep's clothing, Chris? This is a
first.

Now, the smart-people should be aware the newly announced AlFIA (btw - a
lousy all-around presentation) is nothing more than the same old
tired-clique of brain-dead book-sellers and conference vamps.

> Why do I say this, you ask?

Well, because this *is* what has been presented to us:

For instance, 

1) These 'book-sellers' and 'bureaucracy-creators' have no interest in
promoting the greater field of IA (their self-interest being to sell,
sell, sell, books and self-promoting bureaucracy) just as they have no
interest in moving the discipline forward, collectively. Clearly the
activity of self-promotion being in conflict with collective interests.

2) These 'booksellers' and 'bureaucracy-creators' want you to believe
that moving them forward *as individuals* is the best way to move you
forward with them. (i.e. buy my lousy book, join my organization -- ha
ha suckers! [Homer's voice])

Indeed, some of these people can't even put enough material together to
call it a book/organization, but will certainly still try to sell it to
you . . . . 

As it is, the greater IA community (you and me) is nothing more to these
vultures than 'a market' in which commodities can be sold and branding
can take place. In short, the IA community is being used for individual
gain. We are being sent spam in the form of good intentions. You cannot
dispute these observable facts.


IF the newly announced AlFIA, and its core members, were opposed to
movement based solely on their own individual gain (instead favoring
collective direction) -- they would be: 

a) open to intelligent discussion regarding their own core theses, and
not deferred to hiding from any and all criticism by any means necessary
and 

b) they would have corresponded with this list (SIGIA) regarding their
plans to create a 'voice' or organization for all practitioners of IA.

The absence of these things not only suggests, but proves, these people
operate within a personal agenda, thumbing their nose at any who would
speak the truth for the benefit of all.


With this in mind I would dispute, for instance, the wisdom of
statements like this one (the main thesis of the quoted book):

<quote "Elements of User Experience">
The user experience development process is all about ensuring that no
aspect of the user's experience with your site happens without your
conscious, explicit intent. This means taking into account every
possibility of every action the user is likely to take and understanding
the user's expectations at every step of the way through that process.
</quote "Elements of User Experience">

This is so *ridiculous* who could be fooled into believing it? Desperate
people, sheep, and who else? What kind of world exists where nothing
'happens' without "conscious, explicit intent" by some over-seeing
dictator? Clearly, this is unattainable and ridiculous as is the rest of
the book building from this ill-conceived thesis. [I would be happy to
discuss this on SIGIA.]

One does not need to look further than the wisdom of companies claiming
to be involved in IA, (ie, http://adaptivepath.com/ ), but which,
despite the company name, observably have not considered the user by
using a *fixed-font (non-adaptive)* environment. How can one not
recognize the fraud unless they (like sheep) are not looking?

Again, I also point to the ridiculous notion of *findability,* whose
author, again, hides away not willing to openly discuss what is
observably a bad idea, despite this obviousness being clearly pointed
out. [Let's discuss on SIGIA!]

Many people continually fall for these 'bad ideas' and 'poor leadership'
(like sheep) allowing these 'booksellers' and 'bureaucracy-creators' to
take credit for everything-under-the-sun, apparently truly believing the
promotion of a single or tiny group of individuals (and consequently
those individual's blatantly inaccurate, and flat-out wrong material) in
the form of books or conferences or web companies will benefit the
interests of the entire IA community/society.

These people clearly are ignorant of what the word 'society' means in
action and reference, being only concerned with themselves and how they
can *up-sell* to you (the suckers) by endorsing each other.

In lieu of real insight from these people (which hasn't arrived) I would
characterize them as fraudulent, and indicate -- correctly and
observably -- that their sole interest lies in *self-promotion* and not
in the interests of the discipline of IA -- otherwise they would
practice-what-they-preach and open themselves up to public scrutiny
(this means you can't hide behind your own, or your clique-friends,
blogs).

If anyone wishes to dispute these well-known and observable facts --
here I am -- waiting for rebuttal on the American *Society* of
Information Science and Technology Special Interest Group on Information
Architecture email List .

Your continued silence and retreat, like vamps from sunlight, is further
evidence of your unattainable position.

Best Wishes for some Sanity in this Field dominated by vamps,

Derek R
http://derekrogerson.com