[Sigia-l] Findability

[Chris Chandler]

Derek R wrote:

> 'Findability' is first and foremost a hyperbolic suggestion and
> projects, as its essence and sole operation, exaggeration and
> unreasonable excess -- in short, what we call 'untruthfulness.'


I don't accept any of this -- it's merely an assertion on your part, and I reject your premises and your conclusion.
I've read the good Peter's essay on the topic twice over now trying to understand your criticism, and the only thing
hyperbolic here is your rhetoric.


> Often, I have rightfully equated the mendacious concept of 'findability'
> to the practice of 'marketing,' in that the aim of both is loyalty to
> the 'sale,' both seeking only 'exchange' -- at all costs -- including
> the costs of relevance, pleasure, or utility for the user.


Certainly sales and marketing are important to what many of us do (this is life chum -- money makes the world go
'round), but I can say with some assurance that sites/experiences I have designed have afforded relevance, utility, and
maybe even "pleasure" to my audience, and the fact that they can find what they might be looking for is an integral part
of that.


> For surely as I say this there is no real pleasure, relevance, or
> utility in being lied to, or accepting mis-representation in order to
> fulfill a 'glorious' end.

Newsflash -- you and I don't get to decide things like this by fiat. We could go round and round about your questionable
use of the word "real" above, but instead I'll just offer the pornography, weight loss and penile enlargement industries
as anithesis to your thesis.



> It remains our duty as Information Architects to proceed with
> association of what actually exists as being *general* (no categories!)
> instead of attempting to *make it* what is sought and then to 'rest
> assured' that 'pleasure' for the user follows.


I'm immediately suspicious of those who would make claims upon my "duty." My duty is to myself and my family first, and,
in the context of my work, to my employer second.

I'm not impressed by the logic of your "no categories" rant either. Perhaps if you could show me a single example of a
category-less "something" that provided for greater 'utility, relevance and pleausre' than a similiar category-ed
"something" in the context of IA work???



> For surely the latter is
> an inversion of logical order (Hysteron-Proteron
> <http://bartleby.com/61/29/H0372900.html> ) and cannot be 'legitimately'
> introduced as such (i.e. 'x=x+'1 is true; 'x+1=x' is false).


Did anyone ever tell you that you'd catch more flies with honey than by including links to the dictionary for the big
words you like to use?

Your problem, (as I see it), is that despite all the single quotes around words and the twisted prose, or even your
degree in poetics, your pronouncements lack subtlety -- i.e. any hint of the "it depends."

Recently, I was working with a Fortune 500 company on the website of a very well food brand. Yes, the marketing
department was quite keen on offering 'honeypot' free email newsletters, full of 'tips-and-tricks' that reeked of all
that you decry.

On the other hand, my direct research indicated both the desire to 'find', and the frustration with not being able to
'find,' basic product information that could be compared in a meaningful way. The 'faceted' (a term unfairly denigrated
by you btw -- but what else is new?) product browsing system we designed greatly increased the 'findability' of such
information. We didn't assume what people wanted, we asked them.

If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.


<big snip>


> *The Solution*
>
> I believe to remedy this situation we must first and foremost adhere to
> and support an austere 'purity of language' -- both grammatically and
> logically.


Austerity and purity of language begin at home, bub. Really, this line, coming from you made me laugh out loud. Thanks.


>In short we require a 'perfect appropriateness' of words to
> their meaning (semantics).


Even better! Now you say we "require" what cannot be had!


> In opposition to 'findability,' we must have strict accuracy of
> expression (semantics).


You've got to be kidding me! Your "solution" relys on the very thing you're against! "Semantics," far from providing you
with secure ground, is a quagmire.



> To be clear, I venture to propose an infallible
> test -- namely *attention* -- so that our use of 'words' as information
> approaches as close as possible *untranslatable-ness* to other words of
> the same language without injury to meaning.


Hah! You can't even keep up this ridiculous suggestion for more than a paragraph without covering your ass with that
little "approaches as close as possible" which makes a mockery of the 'infalibility' of your proposed test.

Therein lies the rub!!

-cc