Comments on The Indie life: Talking with Louis Rosenfeld

Lou — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:37 GMT

I didn’t read the article, so I really don’t know what his take is. Perhaps Aaron was just trying to ruffle a few interdisciplinary feathers like I did in this interview. Which, if it results in discussion and learning, is ultimately productive.

I would say that IA is by no means two-dimensional. Much of it happens beneath the surface of the UI. Aaron may or may not realize this. Or, again, he may just be stirring the pot a bit so we can all have interesting conversations like this one. ;-)

David Heller — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:37 GMT

Hi everybody!

Lou, I really liked reading your interview and I’m looking forward to reading what you and Peter have to say at this point in the IA timescale. As you know Lou I’m an IA turned ID, but working in ECM I am always a little of both. The question of scalability between content vs. functionality is an interesting one to me b/c well it is my universe. What I am coming across most recently is that there is scalability in functionality that has a comparison to scalability in content. Finding functionality is as much an issue as finding information is, if not more so, b/c first I have to find the functionality that allows me to find the information. ;-) But I do think you are right, that the curves if graphically represented would not be equal. in terms of the # of objects that are part of that scale, but the # of possible solutions is definitely on par, which means the practitioner has an equal amount of sophistication.

I recently read “Interactions” (the SIGCHI magazine) and Aaron Marcus wrote that he feels that IA is just UI Design (so is ID, and ED and usability engineering) and he feels that all these added terms are just confusing and unnecessary except as a means to describe components of UID. I was wondering what you thought about this direction.

Paul Nattress — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:37 GMT

I think that goes to show just how much Lou must dislike explaining what he does for a living.

Mary Jean "Lou's wife" Babic — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:36 GMT

I feel obligated to point out a blatant falsehood in the interview: Lou doesn’t like devilled eggs.

Happy to serve the IA community in whatever small way I can.

Lou — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:36 GMT

Paul, there you go with the questions again…

“Best set of skills to do IA?” Don’t think there is one. There’s perhaps a best mix of skills, with balanced coverage of techniques that help us learn about users, content, and business context (picture those as three circles in a Venn digram).

One may know a lot about content from a background in librarianship, but may benefit from learning about users through HCI and context through studying organizational psychology. Or one may have a background in technical communication (content), with competencies in ethnography (users) and context (management).

This three circle approach can guide one’s efforts at building a good educational foundation to practice IA. It can also help in the recruiting of IA staff and assessment of IA vendors.

Lou — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:36 GMT

Information architect. Or, if you were going to push me for what I did before becoming an IA: librarian.

Bob Baxley — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:36 GMT

If you’re living in a world of content-centric Web sites, it’s true that IA is considerably more complex than ID. However, if you’re working on functionality-centric applications, just the opposite is true. As an interaction designer, information architecture seems like a pretty simple problem. However, that’s only because I work on applications with limited content and therefore only encounter simple IA problems. Structure, behavior, and presentation are all equally important and equally difficult problems although they are balanced in different ways for different types of sites and products. To say that one is more difficult than another is like saying its harder to be a pianist than a guitarist or a drummer.

On a different tack, Lou I’m curious, if pushed for a one word description of your “occupation” what would it be? Designer, librarian, architect, other?

Dennis Huston — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:36 GMT

Lou – Great interview and congratulations on the 2nd edition. I can’t wait to get my copy from O’Reilly any day now. A few years back when I read your first edition I found myself thinking, “Hey, that’s what I do.” So why didn’t anyone call it IA then? Well now everybody (or at least many more people) do and I looking forward to reading the new edition and learning about what’s been happening to me since.

Sean — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:36 GMT

Sure, I think I could provide that service. But if you get a sudden spike in sales in the metropolitan NYC area, I want to be handing the bear a coke on the next cover.

Lou — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:36 GMT

Hey, while you’re at it, take one of the books that you *don’t* steal and turn its cover to face out. (Old authors’ marketing trick.)

Sean Coon — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:40:00 GMT

There is plenty of ID innovation horizon within and outside of the browser environment; both now and in the future.

But let’s focus on a specific case; take a controlled vocabulary/thesuarus for example. The development of the CV is a rich and consuming practice, and can be performed on various levels depending on requirements and the database structure in place. But the intriguing aspect of the CV is that once it has been developed and introduced to a database environment, the interface possibilities for it’s implementation are practically immeasureable.

Are we to say that unless we’re talking about “holographic systems, (or) jacking directly into one’s brain” that innovation is not possible? Just take a look at what Plumb did with Thinkmap. And that was 4 years ago. Are we conceding convention? Are there not cutting edge interaction design solutions remaining for CV’s/search engines within the web environment? I think yes, there are.

Reminding people that distinctions exist between professions/roles is a positive thing. But if I said, “C’mon folks, usability engineering has no weight in comparison to the complexities of interaction design” to “promote discussion,” I would be wrong in doing so.

If I’m alone on this, so be it.

BTW, I’m still planning on getting your book, because I do respect your knowledge as an IA. But now, I’m going to steal it from B&N.

KJV — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:35 GMT

This interview was great! I always love reading new articles on this site and Louis Rosenfeld material. My favorite part of this interview was, “Maybe we should start calling ourselves ‘findability engineers?’”. Although it doesn’t sound as elite or glamorous as “information architect”, it definitely gives normal people a better idea about what is being done. Everyone could relate to that because they have all been to sites that confuse them and where they can’t find things.

Lou — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:35 GMT

...or a good way to promote discussion.

I agree; it’s highly unlikely that an LIS IA probably won’t develop the new widgets we need (though they might help).

But do you think many such widgets really will be developed? I’ve limited my thinking on this to the familiar realm of 2D digital spaces; should we include more futuristic approaches (e.g., holographic systems, jacking directly into one’s brain) in this discussion? If we do, I’ll concede that plenty of ID innovation is on the horizon. If we stick to web browsers and similar, I still have a hard time seeing how the ID problem space will change all that much.

And yes, IA and ID are joined at the hip, but they’re definitely NOT the same thing. I might also add that IA and UE are joined at the hip, as are IA and CM, as are IA and KM, as are IA and organizational psychology… Not trying to be flippant; just want to point out that there is a reason for all of these differences, even if there is much overlap. Part of my hope with this discussion is to remind people that those distinctions are important.

Sean Coon — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:35 GMT

Content will scale. True.

The organization and ‘findability’ of such content will most likely become a more complex task. True.

But the interface(s) that proliferate the results and launch the acquisition of such ‘findability,’ will result through a more complex design task (as opposed to a complex interface). These future widgets, allowing for the exploration/interaction of such scaling content and functionality, have not been designed yet (i.e. look at the historical development of web interface features). Will these interface components be designed by a pure LIS IA? Possibly, but most likely not. Could they they be designed by an IA/ID or ID or an engineer? Most likely.

My point here is that no matter where new media/software development takes us in the future, IA and ID are joined at the hip. To say one will be dealing with more complex issues than the other is being a bit haughty.

Bob Baxley — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:35 GMT

So I catch the tongue in cheek aspect of it all but am still wondering about compare between IA and interaction design. Each field presents its own set of challenges and difficulties. Since we’re all supposed to be working together, it seems more productive to respect each other’s unique contributions regardless of specialty.