Comments on The Age of Findability

Steve Mulder — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:31:57 GMT

Isn’t HCI really more about “Do-ability”? Which is also at the heart of Interaction Design.

Last night I had a dream that I was swimming in a river of jargon (words and acronyms flowing around me) and I was desperately trying to get to shore. Time for a vacation….

George Olsen — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:31:57 GMT

In regards to Kelly’s question, I’d agree that “findability” and “usability” are cojoined twins, and if we wanted to split hairs the “findability” is something of a subset of “usability,” just as “usability” is one quality of “user experience.” And like most things in our communities of practice, there’s definite relations to other fields, most notable “wayfinding.”

But I think there’s a subtle, but important shift in emphasis. “Usability” has traditionally focused on behavior, specifically task accomplishment. HCI really hasn’t paid that much attention to “content” (nor “form” for that matter), which are the three legs of an overall experience.

With due respect to Sherlock, HCI literature generally doesn’t talk much about how to organize lots of content, especially not in the more LIS-y ways that Peter’s familiar with. For example, how many HCI professionals can talk knowledgeably about faceted classication or polyhierarchies? Not many in my experience. It’s a blindspot because traditional software just didn’t have lots of content the way most websites do.

So “findability” just becomes another arrow in the quiver that we can use when necessary. Some will use it more often than others.

Matt — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:06 GMT

To come over all taoist for a moment, “findability” implies a satisfactory conclusion, and “wayfinding” implies an possibly endless but comprehendable journey.

I b liking “findability” in terms of it’s enormous ‘explaining-to-siblings/parents/romantic-entaglements-what-u-do-all-day-and-argue-about-all-night-on-the-net” value.

Roberto Bolullo — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:06 GMT

My background is not especially IA and is difficult to make a clear path of it (very personal interpretations). But in the Master Design for interaction that I done they taught me that NAVIGATION was one of the components in other to create the meaning of systems (and not just digital systems). For this reason I don’t know if is a new concept or more a component that needs to be more used in the area.

As Karin suggest “wayfinding” (more used in virtual reality) is a good start in. Obviously is not the same to create the navigation for dot (null navigation), line, flat or three dimensions lands but to navigate through the different points, locations, spaces there are certain clues and pattern to recognise navigation awareness which are common to any space.

In my point of view is a basic concept in the creation of interactive products, spaces, experiences… as we get more complex and surround ourselves by more complex systems, we need to allow ourselves to travel from different locations and spaces gaining procedural and survey knowledge (when you have both you have complete navigation awareness) to easily create our own paths and interpretations to extract more personal meanings.

So, very interesting concept with more complexity and importance than it seems and easy to read article but not so sure about its novelty.

Roberto Bolullo
bolullo.com/roberto

Abel Lenz — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

Finding things is a task. I wouldn’t want the presence of a new discipline to cause widespread presumption that a particular task should always be a part of every information system. One particular task should probably not define an “age” as your article title indicates.

That said, I do feel it could be a valid subset of information architecture practice, and even be one in which there was a high degree of specialization. There certainly remains a lot of work to be done in the area of wayfinding, especially when it comes to developing ways to better translate users preconceptions to systemic taxonomy.

-Abel Lenz
-New Tilt

Kelly Green — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

So how would designing for or evaluating “findability” be different from designing for or evaluating ‘usability where user goals include finding stuff?’

I’d thought of “findability” as sort of implied in “navigability,” too.

Both of these to say, I’m not clear on the _new_ “depth and complexity” that the concept of “findability” elucidates.

Michael — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

I, for one wasn’t offended by your post, Sherlock, and am always open to reading opinion on all sides of an issue. I hope you and other continue to submit your opinions as it gives readers like myself an opportunity to develop my own understanding, which gives opportunity for the development of new ideas. That’s sort of what John Stuart Mill argued in his treatise “On Liberty”.

That said, I like Peter’s Findability meme, as the concept does seem to apply (like wayfinding) to various spaces (information spaces, architectural interiors, etc.). It explains very simply the intermediate goal of IA work, to help people find things, which in turn helps people to accomplish their goal of USE.

Andrew’s point resounds with me as well. Any architecting of space, even when it considers a set of typical user behaviors and cognitive mappings can still be considered subjective and created far outside of the user perspective. An attempt at generalizing the architecture to closely meet as many perspectives as identified in the audience of users of that space is hard work, as Peter says, but is our best option in my opinion. What you would need, I suppose are ROI reports to prove that there IS value in what we add.

I’m waiting for Peter’s series of essays to evolve into a book some day. Everyone seems to have a book deal these days.

Lou Rosenfeld — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

Sherlock, I may not agree with you 100%, but it’d be pretty a pretty boring world if I did. And questioning IA, or any other discipline emergent or established, ought to be considered a professional responsibility.

So please don’t stop posting; I really don’t think anyone was offended.

sherlock_yoda — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

I would like to respond to peterme’s comments, especially as he saw them as ‘reactionary’. I did not mean to cause any offense with my comments -but sometimes being blunt brings an argument into sharper perspective. If I speak plainly it is easier for you to disagree with me.

You are correct peterme in pointing out my ignorance. My knowledge of Information Architecture comes only reading and correspondence with professional colleagues.

I was not trying to denigrate the practice of IA – as I mentioned, this could well be an important specialism within a multidisciplinary team. My main worries/objections are that firstly a lot of IA literature that I’ve read seems to borrow heavily from what I would consider to be classic HCI work (I’m happy to be corrected here). Secondly, I was still worried about how much value there would be in a company composed mainly of dedicated IA professionals, without other usability/interaction design professionals. I would have thought the number of problems a pure IA firm could solve are quite small – but I’m happy to be corrected.

I still agree with Norman, that perhaps we need a more general grounding for interaction design professionals, before we specialise. I also feel that this grounding should be very practicall and applied.

I apologise if I have offended anyone. I will not post again. If nothing else, perhaps it has been value to be able to argue against someone from another perspective who is willing to question IA?

Many apologies,
Sherlock

Chris Farnum — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

One of the things I liked about working at Argus was that we really were very interdisciplinary. We adopted many ideas from usability and ethonography, though LIS was the background/core competency for most of us. I found that I also learned a great deal about interaction design along the way.

“Findability” is a good term for describing one of the things I really like to address. I think it’s important to have someone on a web project team thinking about it (regardless of her/his title).

peterme — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

I’m a fan of “findability”.

Unlike “information architecture”, it’s
1. tongue-in-cheek-ness makes it a fun term to use.

2. It’s meaning is apparent from the word—you don’t have to define “findability” to begin to get the point across to neophytes.

3. It has a focus that you can get your head around.

Now, I agree with Andrew that “findability” can’t replace “information architecture”, because there are user needs to support with IA that aren’t so obviously directed.

However, I do want to take issue with “sherlock_yoda”s extremely reactionary post, which, I think, does little more than betray an ignorance to the depth and complexity of what’s at issue here. This is hardly simple a “spin” on classic usability practice. I could successfully argue that “usability”, as an independent notion, has been rendered meaningless over the last few years.

And information architecture/findability is complex enough that it ought not simply be expected as a subset of a single person’s skills. While there are those of us whose jobs are to synthesize across information architecture, graphic design, interaction design, copywriting, etc. etc., I’m hesitant to state that anyone who knows “just” information architecture is somehow lacking.

Andrew Hinton — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

I’m still a huge fan of the ‘findability’ meme, and I like this further refinement of the idea… sounds like we’re not trying to say “findability = IA” but that they share some real-estate on the old Venn diagram.
But what do we say about creating spaces that channel people and their work and interactions without their express initiative? i.e. making information environments that are the equivalent of civil engineering or town planning… or restructuring the inside of an office building to enable collaboration? Since users aren’t initiating the “find”—in fact they aren’t even fully conscious of how the information environment is shaping their decisionmaking and communication—does this stretch ‘findability’ too far?
Is this not what Architecture is about, in part? I suppose that’s why I keep circling back to Architecture as the most complete analog—because my understanding of Architecture (albeit limited and romantic) is that it’s at its best when its helping people to work together better. Being able to find the objects and information they need is a secondary byproduct. The interactions with the people come first, and finding the information will follow (else, why would anyone CARE to find something created by a colleague, if they don’t even know or understand that colleague’s value, point of view, contribution?)
We’re creating social spaces, opportunities for community, collaboration, real work, real play, real love and joy. We’re just doing it in what we used to naively call “virtual reality” ... rather than “meatspace.” But what we’re discovering is that virtual reality isn’t virtual at all. It is perhaps more crucial, more immediate, more real, because it diminishes the inertia of time and space. In the reality we build cities for, everyone in the world can be there at any time.
Findability is extremely important, but for me, personally, it’s just one matter in this much larger concern. I keep wanting to call this larger concern “information architecture” but if that’s not what “IA” is, I need to find another rubric.

Ralph — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

sherlock_yoda, thanks for the link to Norman’s article. Hadn’t read it before and agree with you that he makes some good points. Perhaps most appealing to me is the difference he points out between analyzing and doing. During the dot-com heyday there was more room (tolerance, $$) for analyzing. I remember talking to an HF/UI manager at somewhere like iXL or marchFirst and they stated “(grads from the CMU HCI program) are strong in design but weak on the science”. He meant it as a ding against their experimental rigour, I took it as a complement that CMU grads were better at getting things done! My guess is that “researcher” is either out of work or learned to do more and analyze less.

Karin — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:05 GMT

The company I used to work for where I led the information architecture team (10 IA’s running amok!!), in addition to having a digital division, had a print design division. There, I met a fellow who knew a lot about a discipline called “wayfinding”—the art and science of helping people find their way, through airports, museums—any public (or semi-private) spaces. Our disciplines complemented each other and it made for very aspirational conversations.

It is an interesting contrast between wayfinding in virtual and in physical spaces. There are very real differences—running through an airport, bags flailing, cell phone ringing and a throng of people flowing directly at you is a little different than purchasing a book online—but the underlying principle can be the same: user-centred design.

sherlock_yoda — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:04 GMT

Information Architecture, as a separate discipline, has always bothered me. I always wondered if it was a broad enough discipline to merit its own field, or was it just a case of librarians trying to muscle into the usability field with their own spin?

This idea of ‘findability’ confirms my fears. For me, findability is just a subset of goal directed design or user-centred design. Its just another way to put a spin on classic usability practice so the information architects can claim ownership.

I’m not denying that ‘findability’ or ‘information architecture’ are important skills & areas of research; they are. However, I feel that they should just be part of the interaction designer’s toolkit. I could imagine teaching a course in interaction design (I would call it Product Design), with modules on usability, hci, goal-centred design, findability, navigation, information-architecture, etc. However, I couldn’t imagine doing a degree in Information Architecture or ‘Findability’. Even if I could, I’m unsure how marketable it would be. For me, it would be like an Architect, taking a whole degree in designing spaces so that people don’t get lost – rather than this being a sub-unit within the large discipline of architecture.

Perhaps we need a core discipline (call it product design/interaction design/whatever), with things like usability engineering and information architecture as areas of study within this. If someone was to enter the field they would have to cover all these sub areas, and maybe at post-graduate level may choose to specialise (I believe there is value in specialism, especially with skills like ethnography, observation, design, etc – especially if all these skills are available to a product design team). I think Norman makes this point well in an article on his website:

http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/BCCSandProducts.html

(sub-heading ‘an applied curriculum…’

He is basically pointing out that if interaction designers are to be taken seriously we need to have a well rounded set of skills including business skills, marketing skills, technical skills, etc. People who just know one field aren’t going to have enough say.

Sherlock