Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Joe Lamantia

Joe Lamantia — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:16:17 GMT

Thanks Patrick – I’m glad you find them useful. The most important step toward sharing and discussing something is having a name for it, thus the joke that the first law of Information Architecture is “It’s all about labeling”...

As far as I know, these terms originate right here :) But I haven’t done a thorough search for other examples. You might try some of the growing crop of books on portal and dashboard design available from various publishers to see what they have to say. These books were not available when I first developed the building blocks (now a while ago). Let us know what you find?

Joe Lamantia — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:01:45 GMT

@Afshan: Thanks!

@Brendan: You’re quite right, it is easy to get caught up in the wearing the mantle of expert. Or any other mantle that’s as much constructed as real. Once your mantle closes you off to the world…

On mantras, maybe ‘ignorance is power[fully bad]’ ?

@Davee: I came upon Shantideva while looking for other things, yet the fit seemed natural; I suppose that happens often :) I think verse 110 would make a perfect creed for usability / design professionals.

Joe Lamantia — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:23:45 GMT

@Brendan: I agree. I suspect we’re working toward the same end — advocating for open-mindedness, asking why, revisiting unspoken assumptions, etc., all with the goal of keeping a flexible state of mind that allows for good alternatives to emerge from the discussion— even as we use different labels.

As you say, taking the stance of someone without a deep set of preconceived notions or a rigidly defined point of view can be a powerful tool that furthers your understanding. That’s a method of discovery that many in design (and other) disciplines use to good effect.

Shall we try again on the mantra:
[adopting the stance of] ignorance is [a] power[ful way to enhance understanding]

I wouldn’t recommend being or *staying* fully ignorant of what you’re trying to understand – and I’m sure that’s not what you had in mind, either.

BTW: Diamond uses the idea of creeping normalcy to shed some light on how people might allow themselves to run out of trees. Creeping normalcy very briefly means that if each generation cuts down a few more trees, then the cumulative decrease in the number of trees over time can be hard to perceive. His discussion of course is more in depth…

Joe Lamantia — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:02:57 GMT

@Praveen: I hope you enjoy the next few installments. I can’t guarantee they’ll be as philosophical / spiritual / etc. but they should be good reads.

@Josh: Thanks for pointing out the connections linking positional authority, relative optimism (state of mind…), and the flexibility of an organizational culture. In an interesting parallel, I’ve read that wealth and high social standing tend to increase average lifespans, once you account for inherited health factors (like pre-disposition to heart disease). After setting aside variations due to genetics and access to health care, the driving factor that increases life spans is the ability to exercise control over the course of life. Having even a small sense of control over what happens in your life apparently makes you live longer. I wonder if the parallel holds for organizations? If the people who provide the core customer experience are the least positive, that must have an impact on the organization’s performance in the long run.

@Rafa: Maybe you should make some calls to the government :)

@ Laurie: I’m glad you enjoyed the change in tone! Anyone who’s succeeded (at anything) knows failure is always possible, and should be respected as a natural part of life. It’s also natural to look for good models and examples – “Nothing succeeds like success” – of what and how to do something, so I think we have more of those amped up profiles to look forward to…

Joe Lamantia — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:00:51 GMT

Sound suggestion for an article – it’s a topic that needs consideration.

Joe Lamantia — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:34:38 GMT

Most of the building blocks related vocabulary you’ll see throughout the series – like Container and Connector – is ‘original’. Either it’s describing something familiar used in a new way, or it’s a new concept. If one of these terms isn’t clear, let me know, and I’ll try to clarify.

As for the bigger UX vocabulary, the IA Wiki is a good place to check. The IAI website also offers some terminology definitions. Foundational reading like the Polar Bear books, Garrett’s Elements of User Experience, Shedroff’s Experience Design, etc. are good resources.

Joe Lamantia — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:42:04 GMT

@Joan: You’ve surfaced the painful side of managing a finite resource base, and balancing environmental capacity with growth. Other ‘population control’ practices the Tikopians employ include delayed marriage, delayed child-rearing, and what amounts to voluntary suicide by sailing away in an open raft without provisions when population gets too high. Note that these practices are quite a bit less common in the modern era – many people now emigrate to other islands.

Given that Tikopians faced these sorts of choices, I think their careful stewardship of the environment through repeated comprehensive shifts in self-definition is easier to understand.

I’ve received some wonderful insights from entrepreneurs since this article was published. One of the best was “an entrepreneur needs to remain engaged with the business while detaching from outcomes.” I think it’s sound advice, based on my experiences, and is something I will attempt to put into practice with my next venture. Of course, detachment from outcomes can be very tough to achieve if it’s something you believe in and have put effort into. But still, isn’t it better to give your idea a chance in the first place?

@Noah: Sounds like you’ve seen this story from the inside a few times. How well did things work for you? Have you been able to gauge the flexibility of teams before you joined? [In other words, what should we be on the lookout for…?]

Thanks for sharing the writeup.

Joe Lamantia — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:55:31 GMT

@Andrew: Checking out the first article in the series should help set context, especially as some time has passed since the series started, in December ‘06. What you’re reading in this article is indeed a set of principles and assembly rules. Defining the blocks themselves is the next piece in the series (working it’s way through editing now). Assuming a downloadable toolkit is on the way with the upcoming installments, what should the package include?

The Building Blocks are a component based design system; one that attempts to address the specific user experience problems common to tile-based environments. AFAIK, this is the first such component based system to be released to public domain. It is by no means perfect, but the fact that is component based and internally consistent make it an improvement on design approaches that are completely ad hoc and unstructured. See part one of the series for more on the problems, and also Usability Weaknesses Inherent In Portals and Forthcoming Boxes and Arrows Series on Portal Building Blocks.

You said “I’m not clear how it’s really much more than ““build using reusable parts, ideally square ones that can be arranged in various ways.”” This is the flat portlet approach in a nutshell, and exactly what the building blocks try to get beyond. The design principles described here were chosen based on experience with how dashboards and portals tend to evolve over the long-term, and also to support a specific vision for shareable assets discussed in part 1 of the series. With a different vision in mind, and a different context of use (say, content management) the design principles driving the system would be different, as would the resulting framework, and its components.

It is very possible that another component based design system for portals would do a better job of solving the same problems. If – or when – such a system exists, I encourage its release for the benefit of the community. Until then, perhaps the community can use the building blocks as a starting point, and refine and enhance them to be more effective as a framework for solving these problems.

Note: future illustrations will contain rectangles as well as squares…

Joe Lamantia — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:25:05 GMT

@Dave: Thanks for mentioning OO design: you’ve identified the source of some of the most essential ideas that run throughout the Building Blocks – a discussion we had to set aside in order to focus on sharing the toolkit itself. As someone with experience as a software developer, thinking this way no doubt comes naturally to you. We’re privileged to be able to borrow it, and hopefully realize some common good in the process.

Are there any good primers on OO precepts that you’d recommend to those of us with backgrounds in user experience and IA / design?

Looking ahead, it’s something clearly we need more of here in IA/UX land. In fact, I’d wager our future depends on finding a way to incorporate this kind of thinking into our tools, methods, and frame of reference. But that’s also a discussion for another time and place.

Meanwhile, I hope you find something in your travels here in IA/UX land that is worth bringing home with you to the realm of software development!

Joe Lamantia — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:10:04 GMT

@Patrick: Jumpchart is definitely a good candidate for the building blocks. Check with Joe M on his plans for JC in the future.

@Joe: Thanks for the invite. And good luck with your product as it continues to evolve!

@Jeff: You’ve hit the nail on the head. This is “a conceptual model, an extensible and flexible structural framework”. And as some of the subsequent comments indicate, it is meant to be independent of vendors / tools.

Going forward, what should the packaged toolkit include?

@Floris: Great to hear that the blocks have made things clearer in your existing design, will help you communicate with other stakeholders, and that they’re working well with Axure (since it’s a major tool). I hope part 3 is even better for your needs!

Joe Lamantia — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:21:34 GMT

Javed – My email address available at my site – http://www.joelamantia.com.

Joe Lamantia — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:03:27 GMT

@Floris: You could translate the blocks to this sort of situation (if I understand correctly) – though I recommend keeping in mind the idea that the blocks are aimed at tile-based modular design and development situations, rather than categories in an information structure.

Very true that the blocks can be split into smaller elements; if introducing further granularity suits your purposes, I encourage doing so. The blocks are meant to be an open system that grows with adoption by the community, so I also encourage sharing any sorts of ‘extensions’ that come about.

Seven levels provides considerable potential for scaling with structure, while retaining flexibility.

@Patrick: I’m glad to hear it’s useful to you!

Joe Lamantia — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:03:46 GMT

@Parth: Glad you enjoyed the articles, and thanks for the primers on OOP.

Can you talk a bit more about the terminology parallels?

The blocks were created and used to solve real life problems so have been used in many design efforts over the past few years. Because the majority of this work was for enterprise portals of one kind or another, most examples are not publicly accessible. However, with very few exceptions, all of the examples used in the articles themselves come from real life.

As you’ve noted, conflicts in framing are one of the long-standing challenges for portal efforts; the blind men and the elephant is a good parable. I’ve had good results addressing the confusion by talking about three distinct but overlapping views: technology, business, and user. (See this posting for more background: http://www.joelamantia.com/blog/archives/executive_dashbo….

Joe Lamantia — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:06:10 GMT

@Kiran: I’m compiling a list of related reading, to share as part of the series. I haven’t read Stephen Few’s book, but I’m looking forward to it. What other sorts of material would you recommend looking at?

Joe Lamantia — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 01:20:48 GMT

Good highlight of such an important aspect of practicing this discipline – one that we (surprisingly often…) miss at our own peril!

Have you looked at SSM – Soft Systems Methodology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems

A couple of quick notes on the second major idea, Systems Resist Change:

You say, “An organization is a complex system, and like all complex systems it seeks equilibrium.”

Systems often seek states other than equilibrium, something especially true of organizations in business environments, typically oriented toward growth of some kind, or efficiency. (Lately, the buzzword is innovation, but the pattern is that equilibrium is not their goal.)

Which leads to, “Organizational behavior tends towards a point where inputs, outputs, and internal processes are all stable.”

This sounds similar to the homeostatic view of organizational goals and behavior. It’s important to mention that many kinds of organizational goals work against homeostasis; think of the startup pursuing aggressive growth, innovation, acquisition, etc. Stability in this context is something to work against.

“Such systems react to change as a threat and act to restore equilibrium.”

As above, some organizations embrace changes in their states, or even actively seek changes: meaning change is not always a threat to these systems, and is often regarded as a benefit.

Basically, I’ve taken the long way around to say that context matters at the level of change management, which means that we should be aware of the organizational goals that drive our assumptions and approaches to change management in order to be savvy IAs.