[Sigia-l] Web Developers

[Alexander Johannesen]

On 2/7/06, Listera <listera at rcn.com> wrote:
> Well, I can't speak for others. None of us can.

Well, I certainly can speak on others behalf when I say that they're
not me. I'm pretty confident in that.

> I say Design constrained
> *artificially* by titles/deliverables short changes itself by the mere lack
> of access to the power of integration. It's handicapped from the getgo.

Ok, I like the emphasis on 'artificially' because it explains more
about the context of the constraint. And handicapped is better than
bad. :)

> The point is that once artificially segregated you no longer have the
> power of integrated Design, even if/when you want to exercise it, as
> contextually required. IOW, a Designer poised to consider the totality
> of the problem/solution is better equipped than a hyper-specialized
> one trained on a fixed spot.

I'd agree that he'd be better equipped to do great things ... provided
that 'great things' is what people want, even less expect. There are
political issues with any change, and sometimes the politics on an
issue isn't worth the better design. Yeah, sure, it hurts the inner
designer in me to say such herasy, but the pragmatic weathered self
nods along to this bleeding obvious fact.

Again, if all is good, then all is good. If all isn't good, there can
still be a little good happening. I don't belive in ultimate bad, just
like I don't believe in ultimate good either.

> > I know, I know, others ignorance puts constraints on the way they
> > perceive your 'delivery', but, you know, certain people can do better
> > under those circumstances. Don't discriminate against them.
>
> Let's vulgarize this to make a point: the best visual designer or the
> best IA in the world (you know who you are :-) considering just visual
> design or IA, respectively, will never alone solve, say, the design
> problem at Amazon.com.

Hmm, that is only true if the problem of Amazon.com in itself is
segragated. Who knows if an IA can't jump in, shuffle things about,
and voila! No more problems! We don't know. I understand your point
that there might be more than one separated problem with something,
and yes, I agree with that, but it doesn't make the specialised focus
flawed in solving that specialised problem, leaving some other problem
for a later iteration. Some times this makes perfect sense.

Segragated problem-solving is only flawed if you try to solve any
problem in a Big D way. Big D problem-solving is only flawed when any
problem is tried to be solved through only segragated ways. I
understand your argument against the latter, but don't forget the
former in the process.

> The problem there does not neatly divide itself simply into
> visual/infoarch domains. It's an integrated problem, awaiting a
> fundamental solution.

Well, I have to ask, by what? Is this by your definition, or by their
revenue, or some consensus, reports, stock portfolio, their own words,
an amalgam of all of these, etc?

To some, it might be a visual thing only, to others it might be a IA
thing, and to others it might be something else alltogether. Or, hey,
all of the above, but I'm not willing to claim what all those problems
are ... well, except perhaps the visual interface to groupings; that
sucks. :) But you know, at least they've got it right by technology
standards, as I'm allowed to make my own interface on top of it,
trying to see if I can solve the problem through any of those
channels. I'd stress that part before I'd stress what the general
problem is. In fact, I think their solution to the Big D problem is to
create it as a webservice and let the market solve the problem for
them. Smart move.

> Solutions that purport to solve such a problem by offering only a
> segment are inferior, lesser, inadequate, unsatisfactory, second-rate
>  and, ahem, bad.

Ahem, indeed. I'd have to say that you don't *know* this for sure, it
is pure speculation, opinionated musings and certainly not backed up
by their revenues nor their industry oomph. Can you as a Big D
designer jump in and tell us what the overall Big D problem is, and
how you could solve it better than, say, just looking at the IA of the
site?

> When I first dissed Visio on this list years ago people thought it was
> nuts to even question it. So with Windows, homepages, sitemaps,
> deliverables culture, heck, even the very definition of IA. I'm very
> patient. :-)

There is nothing wrong with Visio or any other tool if you deliver
something you've been trusted to do. Nothing at all. Again, is it the
gun or the person pulling the trigger that kills? We can bash the
default templates of PowerPoint for bad presentations, or Visio for
pretty much the same thing, but in your bahing excercises, have you
presented a) what's wrong with them, b) what's the alternative, and c)
the context in which a) and b) are the wrong tool to use? I'm sure I
can find many situations in which Visio makes perfect sense and would
be better equipped to do a better job than alternatives. I dare you.
:)

In fact, I'd argue that what you call the delivery culture is just
natures way of trying to make flocks focus on the same things. The
deliviery makes it easier for certain people to focus. It works for
me, but of course I change the definition of the delivery; again, a
different angle on prblem-solving. We all do it differently. So
"delivery culture" isn't a bad thing in itself, but certainly misused
and misunderstood by ignorant people at the top (who shouldn't be at
the top, but again, that's a people-problem). And they are your
enemies, not the tools themselves, nor so much the processes they're
stuck in. People. Change the people, and the process *will* follow.
Any specialist usability person with piggyback experience would tell
you that. :)


Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
                                                         - Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________