Comments on: Sitting at the Strategy Table http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/09/10/sitting-at-the-strategy-table/ User Experience, Information Architecture & Other Obsessions Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:33:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ideas vs Ideology and the “Strategy Table” http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/09/10/sitting-at-the-strategy-table/comment-page-1/#comment-51062 Ideas vs Ideology and the “Strategy Table” Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:15:28 +0000 http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/09/10/sitting-at-the-strategy-table/#comment-51062 [...] with some terrific questions that made me think a lot harder about what I was getting at. Austin asked: “Is ‘design doing’ the practice of all design practitioners? Can you be a design [...] [...] with some terrific questions that made me think a lot harder about what I was getting at. Austin asked: “Is ‘design doing’ the practice of all design practitioners? Can you be a design [...]

]]> By: Andrew http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/09/10/sitting-at-the-strategy-table/comment-page-1/#comment-51060 Andrew Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:59:30 +0000 http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/09/10/sitting-at-the-strategy-table/#comment-51060 Austin: Wow, these are really fantastic questions. (And I'm not just saying that ... as usual, you make me have to think harder about something I intuitively blurted out before I wrapped it in the right rationale.) I'm going to address the "ideology" bit in a longer post on its own -- but in essence I want to distinguish between ideas & ideology. Designers shouldn't work at the level of ideology (dogma) but with ideas grounded in real experience. So, whether you have a particular work style isn't so much the issue -- if you're not grounding your design work in observation of physical reality, the work will suffer. When you let "first principles" override what you see in front of your face, you run a huge risk of making horrible design decisions that don't address the reality of what's on the ground. I agree that all designers model things. It's part of what gets us from observation to idea to design. But many design fields have the luxury of working with physical materials. They make models with clay, wood, etc. IAs are stuck with "semantic hyperlink structures" as their raw material, for the most part. So we have to model our stuff on whiteboards, paper, whatever, and use a lot of language rather than as many atoms. This is part of why it's been so hard to put a finger on what IA *is* -- because you literally can't put your finger on it. (You can only experience it as negative space -- what connects the things you can put your finger on...) But I don't equate "ideology-driven" with "model-driven" -- and I'll explain that in the next post :-) Austin: Wow, these are really fantastic questions. (And I’m not just saying that … as usual, you make me have to think harder about something I intuitively blurted out before I wrapped it in the right rationale.)
I’m going to address the “ideology” bit in a longer post on its own — but in essence I want to distinguish between ideas & ideology. Designers shouldn’t work at the level of ideology (dogma) but with ideas grounded in real experience.
So, whether you have a particular work style isn’t so much the issue — if you’re not grounding your design work in observation of physical reality, the work will suffer. When you let “first principles” override what you see in front of your face, you run a huge risk of making horrible design decisions that don’t address the reality of what’s on the ground.
I agree that all designers model things. It’s part of what gets us from observation to idea to design. But many design fields have the luxury of working with physical materials. They make models with clay, wood, etc. IAs are stuck with “semantic hyperlink structures” as their raw material, for the most part. So we have to model our stuff on whiteboards, paper, whatever, and use a lot of language rather than as many atoms. This is part of why it’s been so hard to put a finger on what IA *is* — because you literally can’t put your finger on it. (You can only experience it as negative space — what connects the things you can put your finger on…)
But I don’t equate “ideology-driven” with “model-driven” — and I’ll explain that in the next post :-)

]]> By: Austin Govella http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/09/10/sitting-at-the-strategy-table/comment-page-1/#comment-51052 Austin Govella Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:36:29 +0000 http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/09/10/sitting-at-the-strategy-table/#comment-51052 P.S. A while back, Victor framed design as a discipline that makes models of things. How would you say making models of things to make things better is different from how you characterize "the table" as being ideology-driven (model-driven)? P.S. A while back, Victor framed design as a discipline that makes models of things.

How would you say making models of things to make things better is different from how you characterize “the table” as being ideology-driven (model-driven)?

]]> By: Austin Govella http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/09/10/sitting-at-the-strategy-table/comment-page-1/#comment-51051 Austin Govella Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:28:00 +0000 http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/09/10/sitting-at-the-strategy-table/#comment-51051 How do you think work styles and individual biases play into this? I.e. is "design doing" the practice of all design practitioners? Can you be a design practitioner whose practice consists of ideology and abstractions? Is IA a practice of concrete problem solving, or of abstractions? How do you think work styles and individual biases play into this?

I.e. is “design doing” the practice of all design practitioners? Can you be a design practitioner whose practice consists of ideology and abstractions?

Is IA a practice of concrete problem solving, or of abstractions?

]]>