Comments on: Ideas vs Ideology and the “Strategy Table”

By: Websites tagged "gods" on Postsaver

Websites tagged "gods" on Postsaver — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:17:13 +0000

[...] – Ideas vs Ideology and the “Strategy Table” saved by cilla2009-06-14 – INSECTS ARE SHIT – ARE FOOD – ARE GODS – ARE DELICIOUS – WTF – THIS… [...]

By: Nick Trendov

Nick Trendov — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:25:03 +0000

I’ve experiences Strategy from both sides and found that measures make the difference.

When I teach Strategies for a Web Presence at the University of Toronto I define strategy as 3 things; Goals, Measures and Resources, which I then illustrate with a bullseye. Goals in the centre, Measures are the next ring and Resources the last ring.

The strategist has no real control of the goals or resources available, but can influence strategy with measures.

If there are any changes in any of the 3 components of Strategy then the strategist must consider a change or the impact of not changing.

I try to keep things simple but do use two other tools besides the 3 component bullseye–Scenarios and Personae.

It is probably best to have a look at my site and blog links as I use both uniquely.
http://neuropersona.wordpress.com
http://www.scenario2.com

Cheers,
Nick

By: Weekly Linkage [09-19-08] at Experience Planner by Scott Weisbrod

Weekly Linkage [09-19-08] at Experience Planner by Scott Weisbrod — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:16:42 +0000

[...] Ideas vs Ideology and the “Strategy Table” [...]

By: Weekly Points of Interest 2008-09-19 at Experience Matters

Weekly Points of Interest 2008-09-19 at Experience Matters — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:10:00 +0000

[...] Ideas vs Ideology and the “Strategy Table” [...]

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:41:13 +0000

alsomike:
I hope I haven’t sounded quite so prickly! My apologies if I have. Evidently I didn’t make it clear enough in my post that I think *all* systems of thought should be under question. When I reference UCD I mean the tools & techniques, not necessarily the whole-enchilada of UCD worldview. And I really didn’t intend to be dismissive, only cautionary — that eventually a commitment has to be made, whether we’ve perfectly avoided our assumptions or not.
Thanks for being so engaged in the post!

By: alsomike

alsomike — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:23:29 +0000

It’s a little ironic that your post is about the necessity of not being dogmatic, but as soon as I try to do that, you switch to “Yes but we can’t question every truth claim…” and dismissing my point as PoMo semantics.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:17:35 +0000

Kmccoll:
You equate Ideology with a process, but by any conventional definition, it isn’t. It’s a ’set of beliefs, aims and ideas’ — connected as a whole. Being rigorous, as you say, is important. I’m sure we could deconstruct the word to the point where there’s no difference between saying it or “coconut.” But that wouldn’t get us anywhere. Semantics are tricky. But as in any “language game” the important thing is that there be an internal contextual consistency for how we’re using words, otherwise nobody can have a conversation.
You say you “see this connected to your post and you don’t” … but the truth is, I do. You seem to think I believe my ideas “have no enduring, inescapable ideological basis” — but I never made that claim. I only said that we have to challenge our assumptions, and that many design techniques are there precisely for that purpose. I never claimed they didn’t also have origins in people’s ideologies, values, etc. That would be nuts.
Mr. Kellogg invented Corn Flakes to keep people from masturbating. They were a result of his rather peculiar ideology. But I use Corn Flakes as a part of my balanced breakfast, with no intention of affecting my “self affections.” Just because Corn Flakes came from that ideology, it doesn’t mean they’re inherently corrupted by it. They’re a tool. I could just as easily use them in support of some highly developed strain of Hedonism. (The detailed execution of which is fodder for an entirely different sort of blog.)
But, what I want mainly to get across here is this: There comes a point where we have to stop questioning every single truth claim and decision, and *act.* Otherwise no design gets done. I’m all for broadening a designer’s frame of reference to continually be on guard for bad assumptions. But at some point, somebody has to make something. It will be imperfect. But it will hopefully get closer to (impossible) perfection than it would if at least *some* questioning hadn’t happened.

By: kmccoll

kmccoll — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:55:04 +0000

Ha, ha. It is funny when people react in such surprising ways to a post.

I agree that we differ, and the crux of how we differ may rest in part on your quotation of yourself:

“In fact, designers have a track record of inventing ideologies and designing from them. But nearly every example of a terribly designed product can be traced to some ideology.”

It makes me realize that our beliefs about ideology clash. We’re using the word “ideology” in several different ways. As best I can, I’ll say what I understand to be true, based on my observations, those of others I admire, and my process of thinking (my ideology).

The hierarchy goes (from widest to narrowest): ideology, value, idea.

So, designers often have ideas that lead to bad design, like “let’s make a clock that only indicates minutes as numbers and indicates hours as shapes connected to the clock frame.” (It sounded like a fun idea at the time but ultimately it was impractical and ugly.) Ideas like that one come from a value: Innovation trumps what probably works when the innovation makes people think about their world in a different way.

Ideas like “we should make everyone put their tiny bottles of shampoo into plastic bags” stem from the value “I don’t want anything to go wrong that can be blamed on me” or even “making people do silly things at checkpoints makes them think that I give a damn about terrorism.”

Those value stem from an ideology, which is only partially visible.

The reason why I see this as connected to your post and you don’t is that your manner of thinking about the world is different from mine and only partially visible to you, as mine is to me. I agree with the recognition that your values and ideas are non-neutral (?), but I reject the idea that they have no enduring, inescapable ideological basis.

Although this may seem like I’m picking nits, I believe that a designer’s understanding of these concepts is crucial. As designers, we are philosophers. Hashing this stuff out, I think, improves design, rather than distracting from it.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:41:46 +0000

Hm… these comments make me wonder if I wrote a completely different post… but then I go look at the post, and it really is the one I thought I wrote.
I’m pretty sure I said, “In fact, designers have a track record of inventing ideologies and designing from them. But nearly every example of a terribly designed product can be traced to some ideology.”
I am a designer. Therefore, I am included in this statement as well.
We all go through life based on assumptions learned from patterns of past experience — we all reify these truths and act on them. For most of us, much of the time, this works out alright.
But a big part of design’s job is to be aware of these presuppositions, world-views, etc. Hence, we have techniques for shaking ourselves up as much as possible to see things from other frames of reference.
That’s my point about “ideas” vs “ideology” — you can’t get anything done without ideas. They’re necessary. But hopefully you’ve done the work to free those ideas (as much as possible) from your de facto frame of reference.
I still think “Ideology” is a more narrow construct than my commenters seem to think — it’s not just any point of view or set of assumptions. It’s not only rigid, but codified, doctrinal — it’s orthodoxy. Which is different from mere “point of view.” But both can get you into trouble in design.
kmccoll:
Be as aggressive as you like! I honestly think you missed my point, or I missed expressing it well enough, or some combination.
I never claimed to be neutral, or that my rhetoric was somehow clear of any self interest or world view. I only claim that the approach I describe works better than some others, if the goal is design successful products for the marketplace.
One way I hope I avoid being “one of the troops” is by having a healthy dose of doubt about *any* system of thought (including Foucault’s) as much as it includes any other. My preference of one choice over another, in any given situation, is based on what seems to *work* in that context.
I hope I’m getting better as a designer every day. And that everyone else is as well. :-)

By: kmccoll

kmccoll — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 22:31:12 +0000

I stumbled to this website accidentally, but I’m fascinated by the post and its comments.

I especially love how “PoMo semantics” can so easily erase difference. I have to say that I agree with AlsoMike, and the “PoMo semantics” comment actually illustrates what he seems to be saying. I’m also struck by your use of the phrase “on the ground,” which isn’t particularly neutral, either.

You cannot simply remind yourself to reassess your presuppositions. You actually cannot think outside of your ideology. We all have one, and the best possible outcome is for a person to develop his or her own ideosyncratic ideology, rather than hang onto the dominant (which I think is what Foucault had in mind). And to say so is not to engage in tautology, which I think you were referring to, Andrew, when you made that remark about philosophy classes.

Look. Millions of Americans drink coffee, and most of them drink coffee out of (what I think are) functional but ugly coffee makers. Hamilton Beach is successful because it can crank out working coffee makers at a small cost and sell them to people who don’t notice the things they use. That’s functional design.

But I (with my own ideology) prefer to use something beautiful (as I deem it to be) for a short period of time than to use something ugly (as I deem it) for a longer period of time. We all believe design should serve the user. It’s a matter of how. And if you, Andrew, refuse to notice that you operate always within your ideology (your field of assumed, possibly invisible ideas), you will be ruled by it. You won’t get to be Dax or the Strategy Table. You’ll be one of the troops.

Sorry if that sounded a little aggressive. I get a little het up about this stuff, and that Kubrick movie pushes my buttons, too. Nevertheless, I hope you don’t stop thinking about the potential differences among ideas, values, worldviews (all encompassing or not), methods, presuppositions, and yes, ideologies. Be rigorous. Choose how you use words. It’ll make you a better designer, I promise.