Comments on The Making of a Discipline: The Making of a Title

matthew — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:53 GMT

what i feel is at the core of this rant, that no matter what the title the job is to clarify rather than obfuscate, is all too relevant today.

having worked both client and agency side of brand marketing (yes, ugh) for more than 10 years, my EXPERIENCE has been that the less comfortable people feel, the more they try and evade what they do with titles and theories. somewhere the practice, implementation and work history that actually illustrates their theory is left behind.

maybe Nathan needs to stand naked more often to remind us that there is nothing to hide but INexperience…

Drue Miller — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:53 GMT

I’ve used the title “Information/Interaction Designer” for years, because most of what I do falls into both camps (although the terms have different definitions, the tasks are so interdependent that they’re pretty much inseparable).

For similar reasons, I don’t understand the view that “information design” is different from “information architecture” (ID = page structure and presentation, IA = taxonomy, is how the reasoning goes), as though these were distinctly separate pursuits. In my experience, they’ve been anything but; classification affects presentation and vice-versa. I don’t know of anyone who has ever worked on a project that had both an IA and an ID—it’s always been one person (or a team of similarly titled people) shouldering those responsibilities. There’ve been editors, indexers, etc. who were concerned with verbal structure and labelling, but they went by titles other than IA.

Besides, the last thing our field needs is yet another title we have to explain to our clients.

Greg Trust — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:53 GMT

Kelly,

You were absolutely right. An instructionial designer would work for the curriculum department of a school board. They would also work on a website that had the goal of instructing (as opposed to simply disseminating information). You might also find an instructional designer working in a corporate training department. Or, perhaps you might find an instructional designer walking the halls of the Department of Education (in Washington).

My point? I feel there is an inherient problem in tying our field (or any field) into one medium. Certainly individuals can, and should, specialize. But if we define our field that we only work on websites, when the Internet as we know it becomes obsolete we become obsolete.

Kelly — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:53 GMT

Wow!

I was invited to look into “Boxes and Arrows” because someone thought my dark corner of the universe could use some light. She was right! You’ve shown me a whole galaxy I didn’t know existed.

“Experience Architect”. “Instructional Designer”. “Interface Designer”. “Information Architect”. “Information Designer”. These are titles I could never have imagined. If I had to define what people with such titles did (without Nathan’s article), I would guess an experience architect is someone familiar with the proper use of certain drugs, and instructional designer works for the curriculum department of a school board, and information architects and designers work in the propaganda department of a national government.

Me? I guess you could say I’m an Information Experience Facility Architect and Designer. I prefer System Developer though, because it fits better on my business cards.

Uriah Heep — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:53 GMT

Design is what this article isn’t—it’s communication.

Andrew — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:53 GMT

I haven’t actually called myself an IA to a client in some time. Instead, I find I’m talking about what aspects of the problem I’ll be working on as a part of my team. I’ve never had any confusion when I talk about creating functional specifications, flow charts, or site maps. It’s unimportant to them that that work also includes metadata, interaction flow design, and all the other stuff we talk about amongst ourselves as IAs.

I really like Kieth’s comment: “Clients seem to get that I work with information and that I help build things. Some need a little deeper definition and then get it.” I find that those who *want* that deeper information are also inclined to be interested in it and to therefore probably understand it.

Incidentally, who else read Nathan’s essay here when it was an unformed rant on his personal site? This version at B&A is much better, and here in the context of other voices loses some of the whininess that it had as a single long paragraph on his site.

Keith Tatum — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:53 GMT

I share the common confusion of speaking towards a “customer experience” or “user experience”. Not every experience requires a human to be a “customer” and “user” often sounds cold. I’ve tried calling it a “human experience” since all users and customers are human beings, but it often sounds strange. As for a title, I still carry the Information Architect moniker. Clients seem to get that I work with information and that I help build things. Some need a little deeper definition and then get it.

Stewart Dean — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:52 GMT

And it gets worse. Is it user experience or customer experience. Where does customer experience management end and customer relationship management take over? What role does the producer play? And what about the visual/graphic/av designer? Arnt they too experience designers? I consider them to be myself.

For now I use the title user experience manager as although one of my roles is information architecture the user experience is not totally designed or architected by myself.

James Macanufo — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:52 GMT

Modesty wins. Less mulling over names and more improving of the world.

It might help if one of the visionaries who made this mess gave us an interactive hierarchy of titles. With a click and whimsical transition you could sort in descending order of pay, coolness and life expectancy.

Greg Trust — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:52 GMT

Great article overall, but I do have to take exception with one comment made on page 1:

“However, instructional/interface design was clearly a brave, new field—and the titles sounded perfect for the future of the Information Age.”

As someone who has been an instructional designer, still considers themself an instrucional designer, and always will consider themselve an instructional designer, I feel this comment shows the same misunderstanding of instruct. design as the field of experience design is trying to overcome. Instructional design is broader than interface design. It is broader than experience design. It has a rich history, dating back to the 1940’s, that I think most of the experience design community would do well to learn more about. Many of the same issues that are debated over and over again in forums like this (or places like SIGIA) were solved, at least from one perspective, years ago in the instructional design community. Yet, most experience desigers feel that the things they are doing are unique. They have no idea that a rather respected academic field exists to do the exact things they want to do.

Any responses are welcome.