[Sigia-l] Classification is an essential skill

[Jonathan Broad]

On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 13:25, Derek R wrote:
 	 
> Your abstraction/categorization is 'negative
> attention,' as I have indicated before. Pay some attention to your users
> and not just the numbers which you can easily pull-out and fit-into your
> pre-defined matrix of understanding. 

I personally advocate both one-on-one usability sessions, the use of
personas, *and* data mining of web usage information.  

So I ask you: why ignore the demonstrably similar aspects of diverse
user needs?  Why concentrate solely on the idiosyncratic?  I put forward
that this is just as destructive as attending only to the general (which
I have never advocated, nor anyone else on this list to my knowledge).

The opposite of attention isn't abstraction, it's *dis*-traction (or
ignoring, in an active sense, which I'll get to in a sec).  You could
call that "illusory" or "deceptive" abstraction, but in so doing you
really should acknowledge that there are two words for a reason.

The essence of attention is the isolation, not only of a thing, but of
particular details about a thing within the field of experience.  This
necessarily requires the "ignoring" of many other details about
something.  This is *focus*.

Without attention, you might never notice the *similarities* between the
apples when contrasted with the watermelon, *or the differences* between
the fruit and the monkey.  The very same things that are differences
between things become the foundation for their categorization as
similiar, in a different context.  

To be perfectly clear on this point, the different skin colors of the
apples are *more similar than different* when compared to 

So attention to detail is actually the foundation of categorization.
QED.

> Try actively looking for the
> differences instead and you will discover they far out-weigh any
> propped-up similarities which only exist in order to communicate. 

Of course--if you're looking for differences.  There are an infinite
variety of differences between things.  But out-weigh?  By what measure?
In what context?  

Information architects are as often trying to group things together as
they are distinguishing between them, and this requires a much more
balanced approach.

> 
> If you want to appeal to people and facilitate their processes you will
> architect towards 'who' they are, which is a 'category of person' full
> of the difference which defines them as unique individuals. 

The full arrangement of a persons differences reveals how much they have
in common with others.  Ignoring the commonality would lead to unusable
design as often as ignoring the individual, I suggest.

Unless you can prove why accommodating a range of information needs
through "economies of scale" *necessarily* hurts more than it helps, and
be much more specific about techniques for "architecting towards" the
individual that scale to large information collections, your position is
untenable.

> >| personal quibbling

<spliced to appropriate section of email>

> >| when Gerry said 'completely different'
> >| he was saying that it doesn't make sense
> >| to treat humans as apples and oranges
> 
> Yes, I know. He is saying it is better to treat humans as commodity! Try
> a little respect. 

Follow your own advice! There's a good strategy I follow when it comes
to respect: http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/TitforTat.html

</spliced>

> 
> 
> If I have asserted myself inappropriately, I apologize. Any such
> expression is likely the result of irritability and excessive impatience
> other's argumentativeness and general touchiness. I will attempt to
> control my impulses and exuberance. 

I don't think you should apologize to me; I haven't been offended.  But
I applaud the resolution.

> 
> It is not my intention to alienate others, or to create enemies who, in
> the long run, will undermine our shared interests. I come from a
> tradition of 'rebel angels,' so to speak, and following
> ethnomethodology's program, I often 'breach' to get to the 'real'
> bottom-of-things. 

I suggest you expand your pedagogy, and listen better (with more
respect) to fellow list-members who are more aware of the issues at hand
than you realize, although they express themselves from a different
tradition.  Of course, you can take that advice or leave it.

I'm very familiar with your tradition, by the way, and I share much of
its goals.  This is why I've felt it necessary to take the time to
intervene--I think you've become counterproductive of late.  Bad
tactics.

> I will endeavor to work more harmoniously with others, as my own benefit
> is derived from that of the group. However, you must endeavor to get off
> the treadmill and give attention to what your audience is clearly
> telling you -->
> http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/0301/0617.html
> and abandon your impulses to *make* (force) the audience to believe,
> resulting in labeling disproportionate to experience (a lie). Ultimately
> you're going to drive this ship straight into the ground if you do not
> ease off your excessive greed.

Unfortunately, this above is the problem I'm talking about with your
rhetoric.  It is belittling (treadmill), imperative/imperious (must
endeavor, give attention, abandon), apocalyptic (ship...ground),
obscurely phrased (labelling...experience) and disrespectful of the
audience (lie, excessive greed).

Your exhortations and Jeremiads are misplaced here, and the gist of what
you are saying is trivial and not in dispute.  I suggest a more
economical approach, maximizing message and minimizing the apocalyptic. 
Unregulated information economies (like this list) are fundamentally
gift-economies.  Offer more, chastize less. As I said, though, you can
take that advice or leave it.

As a fellow rebel-angel, I assure you you're not in Heaven any more.  :)

Jonathan Broad