Comments on Architecting Our Profession

RonZ — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:14 GMT

I’m pretty much in agreement with greymon. I don’t see any commonality among designers. Perhaps they aren’t understood or appreciated because they have no common traits?

Max Lord — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:14 GMT

I believe that many industries will evolve so that they recognize the value of the design disciplines we espouse here. It is less likely that as many will evolve to support permanent, well-understood positions with common titles, for people exclusively involved in those new activities. For this reason, I am uninterested in the title-wars and wary of further career-specialization.

The concerns we have here are too new to convince with talk. More demonstrable success applying UX, ID, IA (etc) to various business processes is necessary, and this is where I have seen our greatest gains.

mrdangel — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:14 GMT

Back to the article at hand, rather than the grammar flame war that always seems to spring up in these forums (or is it fora?)... why is specialization the answer?

While having experienced managing IA on both sides of the fence (creative direction and project management), I find it difficult to believe that specializing will do anything other than drive up department costs and clutter deliverables. Especially in boutique size firms where every dollar counts. Ask any given employee if they’d rather have a detailed scalable infrastructure for their project or coffee cups in the pantry?

I think the real challenge for IA designers is to prove how IA design can relate directly to the bottom line of a business or initiative. Education is the silver bullet (to paraphrase “The West Wing”) and it’s of paramount importance to inform not just the corporate CIOs and CTOs of bottom line investment in IA design, but also the project managers who map out the timeframe and resource priorities. It’s those players in an initiative that dictate (mostly unknowingly) the challenges and obstacles that IA designers must overcome.

My suggestion is not to spawn yet another support group specifically for IA design (unless of course you’re looking to join the corporate conference racket and make some money from it), but to champion an effort within a larger design community or project management community. Level the playing field for what is good IA with other design/project organizations who help guide corporate citizens in utilizing their project resources. You’ll get better results for the industry with better case studies to demonstrate.

-m

CD Evans — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:14 GMT

I think I’ve given enough space to provide another vague comment without cutting someone off, or something down for that matter.

I do think, that, if you’ll hang on long enough to read another form of english, this is, you’ll find that I’m right in saying design is an art form, and should be respected as such, influencing culture, and as not a forced sale for pete’s sake.

The reason why we need some realistic form of representation is because, like all other cultural phenomenon, we have to have the support of the people, no profession goes unchecked by the public.

This is not science, this is art, and so is language. If you want measurable results, please go architect something measurable, the limits on information are, really, too much data to think about scientifically. Use a blur filter to get the most out of that last sentence.

Not to harp on here, but to top that, one can write however they like, and, for whatever it’s worth, it’s not a puzzle with edges and standard forms.

And, if you should hasten to think as well that my varying usage of grammars is ‘bad’, you should try a few other forms, it’s just information after all, something more flexible than measurable, isn’t it or is it eh.

CD Evans

Ps: Styling is more than design, it’s temporary.

greymon — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:13 GMT

Do you mean to suggest that somehow designers (how ever you define them) have a monopoly on talent and creativity? That no other person and no other domain can be innovative? Are you suggesting that a person without a formal design school education (I’m assuming that’s who you mean by ‘layman’) is incapable of conceptual innovation?

Surely you can’t this hubristic.

In my experience most people calling themselves designers are little more than stylists, lacking the capacity for genuine critical thought, and are capable of little more than parroting momentary fashions. Like every other domain, only a few individuals have the talent and creativity to lift themselves above mediocrity.

Uday — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:13 GMT

[QUOTE]
The only professions with clearly deliniated boundaries are those whose functions *obviously* cannot be performed by laymen without the appropriate knowledge or abilities: surgeons, musicians, professional athletesï¿½

Since design is essentially a desk job that can (in a way) be performed by anyone, we will *never* see the bottom of this.
[/QUOTE]

Is this really true? Can ‘anybody’ do what we do? Doesn’t design require a certain amount of talent, creativity, ‘thinking-out-of-the-box’?

Maybe a ‘layman’ can cut-and-paste from a good design. But, can the same person create an innovative concept?