Comments on Deep Context

Dan Clayton — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:28:03 GMT

I realize my comment is over a year later, but I wanted to add to the conversation, none the less. I think the theory’s being discussed are right on target. Too many times we get pushed into the silo of what we are asked to do in our job, or our department, or even within our industry. I think the internal audit world is a great example. It has historically been an assessor of compliance. However in the mid-1990’s there was a realization, that much more value could be added by helping organizations acheive their objectives. The definition of internal audit was redefined in 1999 to that effect, noting that we help them reach their objectives by assessing the effectiveness of governance, risk management and internal control. That sounds great and has generated a lot of interest in the industry however the challenge over the last 9 years has been one of not sharing historical context for information creation and communication. Internal audit has continued to develop tools from a foundation that does not reflect an understanding of the business context. Business has been forced, through regulation to take steps towards internal audits context. In the end, the lack of unifying context has created regulation, and mechnisms that do little to actually help the organization reach its objectives. It is getting closer. Close enough that we can see the challenge, but this is a great example of how the same information can mean entirely different things to key participants…to the detriment of all.

Jamie Owen — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:42:40 GMT

I might need some help on some of these concepts. My MO has always been to thoroughly investigate the culture and create an app/product/site suited as much as possible to that group of users.
I’m not being critical—I’m simply trying to figure out what I’m not getting.

You write “it can be said that one of the purposes of information architecture is to reduce context dependency in order to facilitate finding – and understanding – information in LC media.” and that “the tools that information architects employ…can be thought of as means to capture contextual information and collapse it into LC space.”

But in particular regard to cultural issues, why are we REDUCING and COLLAPSING context? Shouldn’t we match or nurture the context in which that the member of that culture is used to communicating? By doing so, don’t we help that user transcend the barriers that would interfere with a familiar communications style (be it LC or HC)? Put another way, in a culturally-familiar context, the user does not have to learn an interface or figure out how to interpret any distilled metaphors, processes or paradigms.

You write “These documents and methodologies define the “rules” that establish how communication will occur in an information environment.” The idea that you need to set up rules in the first place means you may be fixing something that may not have been broken in the first place.

Is the idea I’m not getting one of “standardization” across culturally different user groups?

Rajesh Rangarajan — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 02:13:43 GMT

Hi Jorge,

Excellent article.

Amir Dotan — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:35:21 GMT

Hi Jorge,

I think it’s also interesting to note that the characters many HC oriental cultures use reflect their context-oriented approach to life in general. Chinese and Japanese text evolved from pictograms, which very much like hieroglyphics, were visual metaphors. Over time, as was the case with ancient Hebrew for example, the representations became more and more abstract. This was a natural process that was the result of people writing faster, paying less attention to the fine details of the symbol.

Check out http://www.supinfo-projects.com/en/2006/chinese_language/… For an interesting example of how the word ‘horse’ evolved over time.

Amir

Quinn DuPont — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 03:39:39 GMT

Too many platitudes for a confused article. I don’t think that singling out “context” is the right way to understand IA. In fact, I have a rather lengthly response that can be read in full at:
http://iqdupont.com/blog/?p=115

The spoiler of my comment is such:
“Taxonomies increase the available meaning by winnowing down semantic possibilities. A well articulated taxonomy will reduce the possible number of confusions (homonyms, alternative definitions, etc.) and thereby allow information to flow more easily. This is quite independent of context.”

R. Stephen Gracey — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:01:22 GMT

But seriously, folks…

I would articulate the context question as, “What’s NOT being said in this context?” Or, “What’s missing from this picture?” Discovering what is “understood,” as you say so rightly, requires metathinking—observing oneself in thought, and one can’t do that until one has been confronted with “other” thinking from another context.

We would need to map the negative space around the content, just as seeing negative space is critical to accurate drawing.

What kind of map would we have then? How would we use it?

Stephen

R. Stephen Gracey — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:39:20 GMT

“Captain, I PROTEST! I am NOT a merry man…”

;-)

Richard Marsh — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:22:48 GMT

Really nice article Jorge, this is a really nice example of where brand experience and user experience touch.

Dealing with taxonomies is difficult and delicate subject, finding the balance between embracing corporate terms and culture to support brand experience, whilst making the labels used provide clear meaning and context can be a real challange.

An area of collaboration between IA’s, Copywriters and Brand Managers, Marketeers, Corporate Communications perhaps.

Look forward to more articles on this subject.

Richard Marsh
http://www.creative-resonance.com

Michael Beavers — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 02:08:42 GMT

Jorge, this was indeed an interesting article. Before reading this my understanding of cultural context in IA was limited to the after-build offerings of localization/translation firms, whose influence over IA barely scrapes the surface of taxonomy and labeling.

This must build a case for recruiting international user populations and creating contextually based personas if your site will be international or multicultural in reach.

Austin Govella — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:17:20 GMT

Jorge,

This was fantastic, and I’d love to see more. How can we move our deliverables (like mental maps, interaction models, and taxonomies) from LC (documentation) to HC (culture)? Or even unpacking the “context” circle a little more. (I’m not sure about others, but I’ve always seem the users + context = behavior. I’m not so sure anymore.)

A missionary friend of mine related an interesting way of mapping cultures along two continuums:

The first is new and old. American culture would be new. Chinese culture would be old. New cultures (if I remember correctly) were more malleable when compared to older cultures which were more established (and less malleable).

The second continuum was hot and cold, a characterization of how acceptable it is to be emotional in public. British culture is cold. Persian culture is hot.

The new/old, hot/cold continuums might be additional ways you could tease out more detail into a culture’s contexts.