[Sigia-l] Re: first principals (bias in cataloging & classification)

[Peter Merholz]

On 3/11/03 1:37 PM, "George Olsen" <george.olsen at pobox.com> wrote:
> In the graphic design field, it' normal professional practice to present
> three design direction to the client before choosing to go forward with
> one.
> 
>...
> 
> And I suspect we'd discover that much like graphic design, ideas from one
> potential solution can often be cross-fertilized with ideas from another
> solution.

I've long hated when this aspect of graphic design process is brought up in
discussions of information architecture or ux process.

Not because I don't think there's value in trying multiple designs. Clearly,
they're valuable. 

But I do question the value of presenting the multiple designs to clients.

Multiple designs are obviously useful in the design process. Whether they're
coming from a single information architect or numerous, exploring different
options for solving a problem is always valuable.

But, winnowing it down to three and asking the client to choose, or comment,
is meaningless. To the degree that this works at all in graphic design is
due to the highly subjective and emotional aspect of the design -- it's
nearly impossible to say which design is "better" on any rational level, so
you let your feelings, thoughts, moods, notions be your guide in determining
which direction you'll go with.

This is not true of information architecture solutions. These are trying to
address task problems that people have. There are "better" solutions --
those that better support people in accomplishing the task are better than
those that don't. Or you might have success metrics other than or in
addition to task completion. The key point is that you have *metrics*, i.e.
something measurable. Graphic design, typically, isn't "measured" in such a
way (except, perhaps, in direct marketing campaigns). So, without any good
external pressure to bear on a graphic design decision, asking a client to
choose among three directions is feasible.

But we are better able to measure the effectiveness of our solutions. The
most obvious venue being user tests -- I've often tested interaction design
directions to see which people responded to better.

Anyway, the point here is that turning to the client for feedback on
information architecture direction in a way similar to asking for feedback
on graphic design direction would be foolish -- in fact, it would be the
classic mistake of designing for the wrong person.

As one final qualifier, I do think that having the client involved in the
process of information architecture is helpful. Not in a
presentation-of-directions way, but in more of a day-to-day communicative
fashion. 

--peter