[Sigia-l] Why Good Content Must Suck: Designing for the Scent of Information - Jared Spool

[Jan Egil Hagen]

* Maribeth Sullivan <infoarc at optonline.net>
| "Persuasive architecture" per se is not the issue. The issue is the
| intent of the website owner. If it is to deceive or attempt to usurp
| the free will of the user, then we have an ethical problem on our
| hands. In that case, only one party benefits. But many companies are
| (re)discovering that it is not only possible, but desirable, to
| create mutually beneficial relationships with their customers -
| especially now that customers are more in control than ever before.

In a way, persuasive architecture _is_ the issue.  If you have read
Aristotle then you would know that his definition of rhetoric
emphasize that  rhetoric is not about "persuading", but "finding the
persuading aspects of a case".  

Persuasive architecture can thus be one of two things: focused on
persuading people to do something on your web site, or on presenting
what you do in a way that makes people realize why they should
do it.

The differences between the two approaches are important. One is
morally wrong right off the bat, and one is not.  So you see,
persuasive architecture can't just be a skill set that can be used for
either good or evil unless it is seen as the art of persuading.  I
don't think Aristotle would approve of persuasive architecture in that
case.  Perhaps the sophists would.

| Meanwhile, uninformed, juvenile remarks like
| >  Think of all the kinds of kewl new
| > marketing buzzwords we can use to market ourselves and our discipline!
| > Like 'information scent' and 'findability!'
| do nothing to further the intellectual explorations of this group. Perhaps a
| little reading of Aristotle might help. Or maybe just a little reading.