Comments on Information Design: The Understanding Discipline

David Locke — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:28 GMT

There are ways to market with facts. One is you teach them. Seth Goodin hints at curriculum marketing, or exposting prospects and customers to content over time. Another way is to control the criteria through which those facts are considered.

A piece of information is designed for one or more information touchpoints. But, that is restricting the view to the artifact. A good information touchpoint is linked through enactment chains and spread across what I call the enterprise information touchpoint collection. This is a different architecture than what information architects focus on.

Information touchpoints in the enterprise scheme include ALL such touchpoints whether they are branded, graphics design, print, web-based, experiential, rich media, telemarketing scripts, what have you. The business pays for them and expects business value in return.

Ultimately, the information can be subjected to information design at the same time the piece is subject to graphics design and interaction design, or any other design. There is no necessity for a distinction between useful information and brand.

The issue will be have I tuned the information to its ultimate and immediate use. Interaction design asks similar questions as does graphic design.

David Locke — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:28 GMT

One more point. In the art domain, the design process is taught as a craft. It is transferred through experience rather than description. This methodology is the way that tacit and implicit knowledge is tranferred. You can’t necessarily write it down. But, it can still transfer processes.

When people learn they move through a gradient that runs: unconscious-unknowing, conscious-unknowing, conscious-knowing, and finally unconscious-knowing. Ulitmately, those things that we are each best at are things that we might not be able to articulate. So we say to ourselves and of others, “they never articulated the goal.” No, but their methodologies and results managed this implicitly.

David Locke — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:28 GMT

I’m a writer and I design publications as in book design, graphics design, and information design. I’ve had art people ask me how I did some of the things I did.

I do information design with one purpose in mind and that is to reduce the amount of time it takes for my readers/users to find what they need. The utlimate use is obvious and immediate. I use information design to save my employers and clients tons of money. It’s not a data dump. It’s a highly refined knife. If you need a spoon, then you need something designed differently.

I read Wurman back when Wurman was just defining information design. Wrurman certainly practiced information design, but never defined it clearly, so we’ve been asking what is ID for a very long time.

Tufte says he is analytical, because he never designed anything. He looked at what other people designed and built theory from that. I don’t know how Tufte came to define information design.

I also come from the world of software, pre-web software. The art and software communities practice differently. The art community is bringing humanness to the design of interfaces and interactions. The software development community is catching on, but is mostly stuck in a tradition of functionality. Interface comes last.

But, both worlds design. And, the design process is the same in all domains that practice design. Design aligns and mediates between requirements and implementation. This is true in all media.

The story I tell is Snow White. Long ago around Tuetonic camp fires, the priests told the story of Snow White. It took the priests years to learn it and tell it. Everyone told it the same way. There was no leaway in the oral tradition. But, the story was told on purpose (requirements) and was implemented via voice (medium). Somewhere long before it was told, it was designed.

When the Brothers Grimm came along and wrote down all those Teutonic tales, they had to rework the story, because the implementation constraints of fairy tales are different from the implementation constraints of oral tradition.

When someone put Snow White on film, again, the story was the requirements, and film the implementation constraints. The director and his crew, the screenwriter, and the producers all contribute design towards the artifact of that film. The screenplay was yet again another remediation, another satisficing of requirements through implemention constraints.

So we end up with an animated version. Here animiation technologies provide the constraints and the story provides the requirements.

Then, we end up with the metal lunchbox with the cell animations printed on the outside. Again, technical constraints from the medium, and story requirements being arbitrated by design.

That’s what happens across all the mediums including manufacturing plants. Requirements are transferred to a new set of implementation constraints by design.

So what of software design and software architecture? Architecture is a design issue. It is not separate from software design. Architecture may be seen as a higher calling, because of the risks involved and the need to coordinate the team of designers, so you see where more experienced designers become architects.

Information design is similar in my view. Information archiitecture will only take you so far. Then, the information designers build on the framework laid out by the information architect.

After reading this discussion, I can see where the dismissal of content comes from. So I would have to ask, what role does copy play in an ad?

The person that wants to exclude writers and other non-art people from the definition of information design is making a mistake. Content is touched by many. Art possibly by few.

Software programmers are losing control of the interface. But, this was their own fault by issolating themselves. People in art can make the same mistake. Diversity trumps exclusion. Information design has been bigger than art from the day Wurman defined it to the degree that he did.

And, if you design without goal or purpose, don’t tell your clients. If you design without constraints, you know that your design will lack creativity. Creativity is intimately tied to constraints and that uber constraint, the budget.

Lin Wilson — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:28 GMT

re: the Rand vs. Tufte topic

Here’s my take on this….

Paul Rand was a brilliant designer, BUT, when creating a logo, this is branding, and branding is about selling something. It’s marketing.

Edward Tufte, and his ilk, are about presenting clear FACTS so that the user can make an “informed” decision. It’s hallmark is truth. And marketing is not always about truth, it’s also about spin.

That’s the difference, information design as influenced by Tufte and Wurman, has no spin. And branding and corporate identity, is about positioning a company and manipulating perception. This does not make Rand’s efforts shameful, I think he honestly tried to get to the heart of all of his client’s personalities. It’s what your client does with the design that makes the goals different.

(this is not to say that an information graphic cannot be made to spin, if one hides the facts, or focuses on the wrong information, then it is spin – my point is the philosophy)
Lin

Maria Acosta — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:28 GMT

Andrei Herasimchuk said:
“Care to give your reasons on why you believe graphic design is not as deep as information design? Or that interaction design is not as deep?

Would you claim the work of somone like Paul Rand is lesser in depth and scope than the work of someone like Edward Tufte?

If you are, and if this article is implying that notion as well, then I’m all ears on the details on why one would think that is the case.”

Andrei, first let me justify the simplicity of my comments, English is not my native language so is often hard for me to put on words what I think . It would be easier for me to comment in Spanish but I am afraid that not a option in this discussion. :-)

Going back to your request I am not trying to let down graphic design, or worst, rest importance to this practice, I am a graphic designer myself and I understand how deep it is. If you do not buy the description of Information Design being a *integrator* I will try to put it in other words.

Every graphic designer, interface designer, product designer, etc., no matter what background, style, thinking or process they follow if you they are doing their job right can be cataloged as Information Designers, in fact I consider myself and Information Designer. Currently my title reads as “Graphic Designer” but I do not think that is relevant, what is important is when I design I follow different parameters that I used to. Instead prioritizing visuals and leaving the Information in a lover level of importance, Information design is like a reminder on how to achieve the balance between Information and Design, helping to create the best solution, clear, understandable and visually attractive.

Although Information Design is being around for a while now is coming towards us very strongly and is not because a few have agreed on, it is because we needed it. Customers demand it without even knowing it, they need better results that can separate them from their competition.

Any action where:
1. Anlazing data
2. Search of solution
3. Translation of solution through a communication language, visual, oral…(five senses)
is taking place needs to be guided by Information Design to be successful, out of the borders of Graphic Design or Interface Design, that is why Information Designer is way deeper.

Another think to add is that many people would think when they read this is that graphic designers are well aware of the importance of the “Information” contained on every piece they design, but everyday and see something that proves otherwise.

Something else that is brought by Information Design is the open possibilities that this discipline brings to designers, the opportunity to improve and be active in fields where they hardly have been before like “medicine” where the small real states available for instructions are an huge obstacle for clarity, but that is another discussion itself…

I hope this clarifies my position a little better, let me now if you have any other questions.

Matt — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:28 GMT

This continued thread on Information Design as an end-all be-all guiding force for the industry still amazes me. After all, what exactly are we talking about here? What is the issue that is trying to be solved? Too many titles for different jobs? Do we need *one* title for all graphics designer, information architects, interface designers, product designers, navigation designers, usability specialists, and user experience architects? Why would one want to do this? Is it possible to have one person be competent in all of these areas? Is it practical to refer to all of these areas with only one term? “Jim, you are handling the Information Design on this project.” (Looks of panic on Jim’s face emerge.)

To say that an Information Designer is one who defines solutions for information problems is also a huge task. In fact, aren’t all the areas/titles I listed dealing with that very task? Does a graphic designer only look at color & font without thinking about the information that is being projected? Can an IA think about flow and structure without considering the information? And so on, and so on.

Businesses already have people who make information decisions. They are called decision-makers, and are referred to as executives, managers, and supervisors, who are themselves (surprise) divided into areas of specialization – just like graphic designers, IAs, UXAs, product designers, interface designers, navigation designers, etc. etc. etc.

Businesses give individuals special titles so it is apparent what they do. Why interject ambiguity into a norm that is trying to provide clarity?

Eric Diamond — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:28 GMT

Andrei wrote: “It is vital that the field of interface/product design get a single voice on what it is that we do to fit into the business. Too many awkward titles and classififcations are occuring in this field sicne 1996 and the browser became popular, and what is happening as the end result is that the design teams inside the business organization are losing their authority and power due to confusion on “who does what.”

I completely agree. Within design there are always subspecialties, but the practice of design as a discipline should not become so specialized that it discourages the influx of new ideas. Some of the best graphic design I have ever seen has come from architects, painters and even electrical engineers. (The masterpiece London Underground system map was done by an electrical engineer, Harry Beck).

I am beginning to see this kind of overspecialization present among some information architects. When developing Rich Internet Applications, they are so tied to defining usability in terms of HTML and the browser, they are completely unprepared to design a system that has no navigation. Does an RIA really need a site architecture?

I also agree with him that Product Design is a better model for interface design than graphic or environmental design. Graphic designers have long held an anymosity toward research that product designers do not share, and I think ther developmet process of design protoype test build is closer to what we do than thumbnail, comp, mechanical and print.

Eric

Andrei Herasimchuk — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:27 GMT

As a note, I should say I completey agreed with you on this article:

http://experiencethread.com/articles/intel_artcl.cfm

Which now confuses me, as your thoughts in this current B&A article seem to be changing what I *thought* you meant in that article.

But maybe we can discuss that some other time. You asked:

“I would be interested in your justification of what and why “interface/product design” is the better approach.”

I already stated the classification I see: graphic design, information design and interaction design folded into a larger field known either as interface design or product design. I’m not picky on interface versus product terminology, and actually think product design would be a more pragmatic model when thinking about the future of the field.

The justification?

It has to do simply with what I consider the most efficient way to assign tasks to people inside a design team, how to build a team with the neccessary key components and strengths, what the person or manager in charge should know in order to make the correct decisions and/or compromises when needed, and what breakdown in a team would work for the largest number product types (like a web enterprise application versus a hardware/software device like a Palm Pilot versus a traditional desktop client application like Adobe Photoshop.)

The difference between various types of products will become less defined as high-tech moves into every aspect of the products and services around us. In this worldview, I see people who need all the skillsets in the three areas I classified.

The intent behind each of the three activites is probably more where my classifications come from. The intent of a Rand versus the intent of a Tufte is different. In that, I see the need to have the strengths of those very two different intents called out. There is a third intent as well, the interaction piece.

One of these days, I’ll finish a white paper I started on this topic… Every time I sit down to write more on it, I realize it might be a big as a book, and I have no desire to spend time wriiting a book right now.

By the way, I disagree with the statement:

“Rand is trying to create information that results in, for example, people around the world spending more money with UPS.”

Rand did no such thing, to my recollection. He never stated his goals as such in any of his books in this manner. I don’t have his books at work with me to find the quotes, but will try and do so later.

In the end game, we probably do agree on much. But the devil is in the details, as always. I’m concerned with how the Design team lives in the business of the future, and even more concerned with how ill-prepared so many design students seem to be coming out of school these days.

Andrei

Dirk — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:27 GMT

Andrei wrote:

“In real world use on the job, if people in our field try and switch the classification of graphic design into something like information design, what will occur is yet more chaos in the field for how others in the business organization understand what it is we do. And IMHO, it won’t have helped because the end work being done isn’t classified or sectioned off in that way.

It is vital that the field of interface/product design get a single voice on what it is that we do to fit into the business. Too many awkward titles and classififcations are occuring in this field sicne 1996 and the browser became popular, and what is happening as the end result is that the design teams inside the business organization are losing their authority and power due to confusion on ‘who does what.’”

We agree on the goal – we need clarity and defined domain to empower Design. We just disagree on the classification and manifestation. I would be interested in your justification of what and why “interface/product design” is the better approach. What are the other domains that are above, parallel to and below “interface/product” in your model? What is your definition of Design? etc.

We are speaking different languages, even if only by different perceptions of the same words, and it is unlikely that we will achieve any sort of agreement from that position. That is one of the reasons that I do not find your perspective “presumptuous” at all, despite the fact that I do not agree with it. In fact, I respect it.

Andrei wrote:
“I would agree there are overlaps in what each does, but the end goal, where they are driving their work, is entirely different.”

Tufte is trying to create information that results in, for example, the Challenger Space Shuttle not being launched. He has identified an action that he wants taken (don’t launch; avoid catastrophe) accumulates data to support that, applies various tools to the data (graphics, structure, layout, etc.) and organizes and presents it in a way that he believes has the greatest possible chance of effectively creating the desired action.

Rand is trying to create information that results in, for example, people around the world spending more money with UPS. He has identified an action that he wants taken (trust the brand, buy the product), accumulates data to support that, applies various tools to the data (in Rand’s case, the representation of the data is more *abstract* but fundamentally still data) and organizes and presents it in a way that he believes has the greatest possible chance of effectively creating the desired action.

Neither one would necessarily use those words, or lay it out the same way, but their contextualized self-perception is ultimately academic: their perspective of their place within the domain is extremely subjective.

Yes, their processes are different – because they think differently, see their tools differently, have different backgrounds – but at the end of the day, what they are doing is quite similar. And what they have in common is that they are designing information deliverables.

So lets say that Tufte is an “analytical designer” because his information deliverable is more driven by representations of numerical and analytical data, whereby Rand is a “graphic designer” because his information deliverable is more driven by representations of color, shape, form, perspective. That is fine – they can have those titles. Nonetheless, at the end of the day what both of them have designed – while different to some degree – remains information and share some level of similar thought process. They are both information designers. Despite their differences, they have ID in common.

I suspect from your comments and word choice that we will not agree on this classification regardless of our respective analytical presentations. And that is OK. I *am* pleased that we share clarity of domain as an ultimate goal for our industry in general. This, more than anything, is the barrier preventing designers of all stripe from realizing appropriate influence within the operating paradigm.

Andrei Herasimchuk — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:27 GMT

“I consider both Edward Tufte *and* Paul Rand information designers.”

Wow. That’s a fairly bold statement. Maybe someone should ask Tufte himself what he thinks. I pointed Tufte to the Raskin article last month on the notion there is no such thing as information deisgn on his site and Tufte said that maybe “information design” was really more “analytical design.”

Is Paul Rand an “analytical designer?”

I don’t buy that. Paul Rand was very proud of the fact that what was once known as “commerical art” became to be known as “graphic design” and was very much a vital business unit in the organization. Much of having to do with his work and what he thought in the field.

Rand’s work is very different from Tufte’s work. The end results they produce are different beasts. Pull out their books, read what they focus on. Flipping through them and you can see that what they focus on, where their work goes, are very different things.

I would agree there are overlaps in what each does, but the end goal, where they are driving their work, is entirely different.

“At the risk of oversimplification, I am actually saying that Information Design is a *broad* classification…”

I realize this. I find that classification incorrect and a bit presumptuous (to be blunt).

In real world use on the job, if people in our field try and switch the classification of graphic design into something like information design, what will occur is yet more chaos in the field for how others in the business organization understand what it is we do. And IMHO, it won’t have helped because the end work being done isn’t classified or sectioned off in that way.

Andrei

Dirk — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:27 GMT

Hi Andrei,

Your latest questions stemming from Maria’s post dovetail nicely into addressing some of your earlier comments.

I consider both Edward Tufte *and* Paul Rand information designers. While Tufte’s manifestation of ID is more linear to understand – he is very literally taking what we popularly consider data and synthesizing it into information – Rand was really doing the same thing. He was attempting to achieve certain goals, considering a variety of different contexts in order to understand and be successful within the domain (identifying data), and then condensing (carefully selecting the appropriate data – in the form of letters and graphics) to produce information (UPS logo, for instance) that communicated with high density and promoted understanding.

I am not trying to imply value or worth in this article; in fact, I was very careful to try and avoid doing so. It is a question of classification and domain. The larger umbrella – and I think where our disconnect on mutual understanding – is that the overall domain of design is not classified in any generally accepted way, so we do not share a common vocabulary. While I imagine that we both understand the different components of creating effective information we do not perceive boundaries and classifications the same way.

At the risk of oversimplification, I am actually saying that Information Design is a *broad* classification; the *depth* is provided by the components that go into the design of successful information, such as writing, structure and organization, sensorial interface. What integrates them is information, that they are each a component and need to be appropriately balanced in their given context for that information to be effective.

I did not catch the original typing error you mention, but it is past midnight and I am bleary eyed. :-) However, your reminiscing about programming in BASIC hits close to home. Ah, the days of the Apple II+ and creating textual “choose your own adventure” games!

Dirk

Andrei Herasimchuk — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:27 GMT

Care to give your reasons on why you believe graphic design is not as deep as information design? Or that interaction design is not as deep?

Would you claim the work of somone like Paul Rand is lesser in depth and scope than the work of someone like Edward Tufte?

If you are, and if this article is implying that notion as well, then I’m all ears on the details on why one would think that is the case.

Andrei

Maria Acosta — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:27 GMT

I strongly disagree with this statement:
“Graphic design is as equally deep as information design. Interaction Design is also equally as deep. All of these fields, graphic design, information design and interaction design are enormous in scope and depth. To think any one of these as niche to the other is simple false.”
As I understand it Information Design is an integrator and a controller of all communication disciplines so it can not be equally deep as the others.
Graphic designers, interaction designers and other practitioners of communication disciplines will look at ID as the guidance for success on communicating their messages clearly and effectively. I think ID is way deeper than graphic design and interaction design.
:-)

Andrei Herasimchuk — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:27 GMT

One of these days, I’ll learn to type. Never let your children learn how to type on a touch pad keyboard, like I did with a Timex Sinclair at the young age of 10, learning how to program BASIC. Bad habits learned young die very hard.

Andrei

Andrei Herasimchuk — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:51:27 GMT

“Information design is not the same as information architecture; it is not merely an “enlightened” version of graphic design; it is not somehow a niche component in interface or experience design.”

I doubt anyone truly experienced in interface or prodcut design would think that information design is a “niche component.” Not anyone who understands the depth of the field at least.

Graphic design is as equally deep as information design. Interaction Design is also equally as deep. All of these fields, graphic design, information design and interaction design are enormous in scope and depth. To think any one of these as niche to the other is simple false.

I personally think you incorrectly stated this analogy:

”...graphic design (or information architecture or technical writing, etc.) is to information design as geometry (or algebra or calculus, etc.) is to mathematics.”

The analogy I draw is this:

Graphic design, information design and interaction design is to interface design (or product design if you disagree with an old school term) as algebra, geometry and calculus is to mathematics.

This is the only grouping of the fields that I have found that are practical and work in all areas of tehcnology. From web site application design, to desktop software, to integrated hardware/software solutions.

Andrei