Posts Mentioning RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Rob Fay 9:39 pm on 4/19/2007 Permalink | Reply  

    IA Summit 2007 Redux: Joshua Prince-Ramus 

    It’s been over a month since the IA Summit, and I’m only now getting a chance to write about the experience. I took notes from many of the sessions I attended, but I’ll try to link to available videos or slides when possible.

    An opening keynote: Joshua Prince-Ramus.

    I was pleasantly surprised to learn how much commonality there is between “brick and mortar” architecture and information architecture. Joshua outlined issues surrounding limitations of space, resources and differing business goals and provided a glimpse into how his firm pushes for the best solution given these constraints. He had presented a similar talk to TED in February 2006, so seems best to just show you his related talk.

    [Runtime: 20:09 | Please make sure you have the latest version of Adobe Flash installed on your computer to watch this video. To download it, please visit: http://www.adobe.com/ ]

    Tags: [, , , , , , , , ]

     

  • Rob Fay 12:04 pm on 5/23/2006 Permalink  

    IA Summit Redux: DC-Style 

    dc-ia

    On Saturday May 20, the local chapter of DC information architects got together to recap topics that were addressed and discussed at the 2006 IA Summit. This was a long time coming for me. I’ve been meaning to attend these local meetings, but life has, of course, gotten in the way.

    Livia Labate has provided a wealth of useful material, including MP3 recordings of the local DC event, as well as links to material that was presented at the Summit.

    Anyway, the following is a brief summary of my notes. Certainly these notes do not codify the entirety of the redux – just my own brain dump based on notes taken at the event. The topics to be addressed are listed below (those in bold are the ones we had time to discuss):

    Overview

    1. Summit Overview#
    2. Tagging#
    3. Wireframes#
    4. New Technology#
    5. Content Management
    6. Business and IA
    7. Theory#
    8. International

    Summit Overview

    Dan Brown facilitated the DC-IA redux, and one of the things he discussed centered around the format of the Summit. He mentioned that in the past, there was a greater selection of things to attend and a greater variety of topics. On the other hand, he mentioned that there were better opportunities to connect with people outside of sessions this past year. He asked for input on how to create a culture that would both maximize connections outside of sessions and make good use in-session time.

    Tagging

    James Melzer addressed the topic of tagging, focusing primarily on using the bookmark tool del.icio.us.

    Some discussion revolved around making a distinction between a group versus a crowd. A group, James indicated, is intentional, known, and planned. In contrast, a crowd is unknown and not planned. Del.icio.us embraces both, and James noted that sometimes crowds become groups in Del.icio.us because is sometimes ends up being the same people who are the forefront of tagging, and their aggregate work sets trends for other users.

    Tagging::Kinds of Tags

    • Description (Singular)
    • Categorization (plural)
    • Opinion
    • Action (temporary, personal)
    • Relation (for userid)
    • Insider Reference (e.g., “enterprise_ia”)

    Wireframes

    Nathan Curtis discussed wireframes. Apparently, Nathan worked at K12 for a few months just before I arrived. I’ve heard very good things about him – in particular, how he shared some of his wireframing techniques with current K12 IAs.

    Wireframes::Techniques

    Nathan explained that there was a discussion of using different wireframing techniques/tools, including:

    Wireframes::Challenges

    Nathan mentioned that IAs need to struggle with representing interactions over time. With the advent of RIAs such as Flash and Ajax, IAs need to be able to communicate how information is to be presented, but how user behaviors will affect the feedback and visual representation of a web application. Nathan mentioned Bill Scott at Yahoo! and how he uses interaction storyboards, complete with interaction matrices to document all behavior changes for a given interaction type.

    One technique Nathan mentioned was to segment the “modules” that comprise a wireframe. In other words, reusable widgets can be saved as components to be used over and over again. In addition, Nathan commented on Kevin Cheng’s use of comics to communicate HCI usability issues with stakeholders.

    New Technology

    Nathan briefly discussed how new technologies are affecting the profession. For instance, Laszlo and Adobe Flex make it easier to move from a rapid prototype to a working solution. The web metaphor is moving away from “pages” to “mashups,” so IAs need to be able to embrace change and add new skill sets to accomodate for this change.

    The group also discussed game design and the use of incentives as a way to interact with the user.

    Theory

    Olga Howard took some more time to cover the distinction of “crowd” versus “group.” With regard to tagging in Del.icio.us, the group discussed how there may be a flurry of different tags used to classify objects, but over time, the number of tags flattens to an accepted assortment.

    Next, the discussion turned to Morville’s championing of “findability.” The basic questions to ask include:

    • Is it useful?
    • Is it desirable?
    • Is it valuable?
    • Is it credible?

    Conclusion

    Since I have not been able to attend the IA Summit yet, I found this redux to be pretty informative. In addition to getting useful information, I enjoyed spending time with other like-minded individuals who have a passion for creating usable intuitive products.

    Tags: [, , , , , , , , ]

     

  • Rob Fay 12:39 pm on 1/18/2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Egocentrically Altruistic Web 2.0 

    John Battelle recently asked readers to come up with a tagline for the next Web 2.0 conference. This will be the third such conference.

    Year One included the tagline “The Web Is a Platform” to which Battelle remarks,

    “That felt spot on, because the idea of the web as a place you could build on the work of others was a pretty new idea.”

    Year Two included the tagline “Revving the Web” to which Battelle remarks,

    “…because it was all about the services and businesses and opportunities that arose from the Web – all of which taken together made the web more robust and more exciting.”

    For November’s conference, Battelle suggests the tagline “Disruption” by indicating,

    “…the year the Web – in all its forms – really flexes its muscle and begins to seriously turn the soil of the global economy in deep and permanent ways. Think of the disruptions in the media and entertainment industries – probably the deepest disruptions so far. But we’re only in the first inning or so of the disruptions in the mobile and communications space (how excited do YOU think AT&T is about Google offering free Wifi, for example? Or eBay buying Skype?). And the disruptions of search and clickstreams on commerce is only now beginning, and the same is true for the massive IT industry (Microsoft Live, anyone?). And the disruption on our cultural life – in government, for example (can you say warrantless wiretaps meets the Database of Intentions?) – is only beginning to dawn on all of us.”

    (More …)

     

  • Rob Fay 9:56 pm on 7/28/2005 Permalink  

    “The Anti-Google” 

    On Tuesday, Thomas Vander Wal, the person who coined the concept “folksonomy,” came by my summer grad school class with a talk entitled “Designing for the Personal InfoCloud.”

    Thomas talked about a variety of topics, but some of the things that struck me revolved around his discussion of folksonomy. Thomas says that he does not like the definition included in Wikipedia because the site allows users to constantly add or remove content to define the concept. He provided us with the following descriptors:

    Folksonomy:

    • Actual vocabulary used for objects in a community and across communities;
    • Network-based selfish bookmarking;
    • Free-tagging;
    • Socially shared; and
    • Externally structuring content

    There were a few concepts that clicked in place and resonated with me. First, something clicked when Thomas explained that folksonomy is the “anti-Google.” Essentially, Thomas argued that search tools build algorithms to help you “find what you want.” However, the concept of folksonomies, manifested in collaborative bookmarking tools (such as Flickr, Del.icio.us, etc.), help you “find what you don’t know you want.” He explained that while a majority of people might want results that are in the mainstream, folksonomies let users find information that might be in the long-tail:

    The Long Tail Effect in Music

    Secondly, I really got hung up on the idea that folksonomies involved “selfish bookmarking.” For instance, when my wife bookmarks an article about Apple’s iPod, she might only use the term “ipod” to tag her bookmark, because she only cares about classifying her article so she can find it later. On the other hand, even though I know I can later find the article by searching for “iPod,” I might try to use multiple tags to help others locate my article. I might additionally use the terms “Apple,” “mp3,” “music,” and so on. However, Thomas cuts through this by explaining that if you choose to assist others this way, then this is really your selfish method of bookmarking.

    Thomas’ concept really involves no moral, ethical, or “responsibility of the user” argument when it comes to practicing folksonomies. However, as I’ve argued before, for some reason I am stuck on the responsibility of the social tagger. My ideal would be that taggers use multiple tags to describe the content that they choose to bookmark. That way, it becomes easier for other persons to find their content. This does not negate the concept of folksonomies. The social component to this phenomenon is such that we learn to trust others and the tags they use to describe content. Therefore, I still propose that other services that incorporate folksonomies into their systems provide a mechanism for rating taggers on a “trustworthy” scale.

    Tags: [, , , , , , ]

     

    • Alex 9:48 am on 7/29/2005 Permalink

      Regarding tagging as the “anti-google,” check out Yahoo’s My Web 2.0 at myweb2.search.yahoo.com.. I can’t imagine google is too far behind.. I’d be interested in seeing some sort of hybrid tagging+pagerank search tool.

    • Rob Fay 10:14 am on 7/29/2005 Permalink

      Thanks, Alex. I think I’ve bookmarked that site somewhere, but I just haven’t had the time to check it out. I’ll be sure to visit it. By the way, any success with the IOG thing?

    • Mike 2:38 pm on 7/29/2005 Permalink

      Very interesting comment. However, I am not sure if this is really “Anti Google” or if Google will just embrace this trend just like Yahoo! is attempting to do with MyWeb2.0.

      I agree with your comment that folksonomies are going to have a very significant impact on the way people store, share, and discovery new information. Plus, tagging is very selfish and still works. Lots of people want to use multiple tags just to make finding and retrieving their information much easier going forward. After all, lots of things are associated with different mental notes (i.e. tags).

      Given your interest, I tought you might be interested in checking out our site (www.blinklist.com). Would love to hear from you if you have a chance to check it out.

      Mike

    • Rob Fay 3:25 pm on 7/29/2005 Permalink

      Mike-

      Thanks for your feedback (and the plug for your site – I’ll check it out when I get a chance). I’m sure Google will move this way, but I believe the phrase meant to capture the fact that Google’s search tool is used to retrieve what persons are looking for, not what they are not necessarily looking for. The Long-Tail discussion points to the fact that gems can be found in unlikely places.

    • Nomad 3:39 pm on 8/1/2005 Permalink

      Wouldn’t it make more sense (from a human nature standpoint) to use a Google-type conceptual mapping system to be able to know that certain other words are associated with a given topic? For example, it would “know” (from spidering and mining the web) that “Apple” and “MP3″ and “DRM” are all commonly associated with iPod and be able to automatically put up additional tags. This allows humans to be “selfish” without putting the onus on the human.

      Similarly, if the posting lacks all of the common words that are known about, it would be an indication in the pagerank that it is a tag in bad faith or of a personal vocabulary.

  • Rob Fay 12:35 pm on 4/28/2005 Permalink  

    Matt Drudge, PIM Portal Pioneer 

    me text

    As an American, I am profoundly aware that I am living in a “me” culture, one that took off during Generation X. Here are a few examples of cultural/technical changes, partially influenced by this “me” philosophy:

    Television

    There used to be 4 main television channels – ABC, CBS, FOX, and NBC. From these sources, consumers were entertained, informed, and marketed to. Today, it is not uncommon for the typical consumer to have hundreds of cable or satellite choices to satisfy their specific interests for entertainment or information. Consumers with these advanced pay services can also choose to see selected movies, sporting events, music events, etc. with on-demand-like features.

    Music

    Services like iTunes and Napster allow consumers to pick and choose the individual songs they would like to purchase (or “rent”). Even radio formats such as Jack tries to broaden its appeal to many people, so at least they can hear some tunes off the beaten path.

    Web Services

    I made the mistake a few years ago when my contracting company planned to implement the portal concept to its web applications. I thought, “Why waste all this time and energy collapsing customized information for people when they can go to individual sites on their own?” I made the mistake of forgetting where I was (America – the “me” culture) and two other critical variables. (More …)

     

  • Rob Fay 8:21 am on 3/29/2005 Permalink  

    The Collaborative Filter 

    What is the benefit of folksonomy? I believe there are two important elements to this relatively new phenomenon:

    1. The “social” aspect of collaborative tagging allows users to find other users with potentially similar interests. On the surface, for example, this may seem no different than finding like-minded people at a sports-related bb or finding a romantic connection at Match.com. However, this form of collaboration is about sharing information, not making a love connection.
    2. More importantly, leveraging this collaborative culture provides personal information managers with exponential power to filter the information universe and make better sense of their own personal infocloud.

    I liken this to a professor with multiple research assistants. This professor must divide his or her time wearing many hats: teacher, researcher, and presenter (and parent, spouse, etc.). The research assistants save this professor valuable time by doing a lot of the gruntwork – thereby giving the professor more time to easily assimilate this information and focus on pioneering new research initiatives.

    For instance, Mark Woodman describes how users can leverage others’ del.icio.us bookmarks as a way to better manage your own personal infocloud.

    Social software such as flickr, del.icio.us, and more are powerful because, not only do they let people collaboratively categorize information, but they allow users to bookmark these categories, either directly or through RSS / Atom feeds.

    Collaborative filtering certainly makes my life a whole lot easier.

    Tags: [, , , , ]

     

    • James E. Lee 7:38 pm on 5/20/2005 Permalink

      You commented on my “Why I have 2 blogs” article a while back, and advised me to check out Furl. I just wanted to say thanks; I finally got around to checking it out, and it’s definitely a better solution than Bloglines’ clip blog, except that it doesn’t integrate with Bloglines, my feed reader. Hopefully, we’ll reach a point when aggregation services permit saving content to arbitrary locations/services/sites.

      I also like your idea of feeding my clips to my blog sidebar; cool!
      In any case, I appreciate the feedback!

  • Rob Fay 2:13 pm on 3/25/2005 Permalink  

    Rating Taggers – “Thumbing” 

    The tagging phenomenon that exists for purveyors of information has many promising advantages for people. Unfortunately, by handing the power of creating personal taxonomies and classification to the end user, will we be better off?

    Certainly one of the beautiful things about tagging is that it now allows users to disseminate, locate, and share information in an efficient manner. Moreover, we tend to rely on the classification of information by persons we learn to trust.

    Therefore, if it does not already exist, I suggest that as the social software [flickr, del.icio.us, etc.] scene grows and grows, there should be a rating system that each of these social software services enables so that the information consumer can rate the taxonomist. For example, use Amazon as a model. They use a rating system so customers can assign a “was it helpful” ranking to layperson reviews of products and services. Then as a consumer [in this case of products and services] I can decide whether or not to trust this review based on the feedback this person has received. Why can’t we use a similar system to help consumers of information?

    I liken the tagging phenomenon to a filter of sorts. Why scan the entire Internet when I can apply a filter and search for information that has already been classified for me? However, since now all laypersons using social software wield this power, could this filter become distorted? You bet. However, if we can rate this growing group of taxonomists (myself included), then we are provided with an even richer piece of metadata that will aid us in our quest for information retrieval. I propose we introduce a new term and feature set to social software – “Thumbing” – a term that describes a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” approach to rating these social taxonomists.

    UPDATED 04/14/2005 – Not sure if I like the “Thumbing” term. Perhaps in a nod to folksonomy – combining folk and taxonomy, the term “Ragging” – combining rating and tagging, might be a better term…although the term is already a colloquialism for teasing…

    Tags: [, , , , ]

     

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel