Extra! Extra!

Here is something of interest to Edward Tufte fans: a handy resource for identifying when to use a graph or chart. The periodic table of visualization methods consists of 100 different information graphics organized like the periodic table into similar properties and functions. Simply roll over a selection to see an example. Some are useful for visualizing data relationships; others for brainstorming concepts; and others for developing arguments and strategies. The table includes everything from standard visual tools (such as pie charts and Venn diagrams) to more obscure ones (like box plots and tensor diagrams). It also identifies which methods are most effective for communicating detailed vs. summary information, process vs. structure, and divergent vs. convergent relationships. It’s useful when you need to present information visually to facilitate understanding, but are not sure of the best way to do it.

Congratulations to the Extractable team on the launch of the redesigned LBS Financial Credit Union website and another successful credit union project.

The site is live at http://www.lbsfcu.org

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has come out strongly against the idea of wikipedia contributors being paid by corporations to edit wikipedia articles about them.

OK, so “payola” isn’t the correct term. Payola involved payments for airplay on radio, which is controlled by a relatively small number of people. Wikipedia has a much broader field of contributors, so it’s not exactly a parallel situation.

I guess I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, any paid contributor is likely to have a strong bias that would probably be reflected in the article. On the other hand, wikipedia entries for many corporations are pretty sparse (Extractable doesn’t have one yet) because they lack a fan base.

I suspect this will be somewhat resolved over time, yielding two things: a generally accepted set of norms around this issue, and a number of people perfectly willing to violate those norms for the right price.

Of course the best solution would be to offer a method for companies to make sure their entries are robust and up to date, but with some method for curtailing useless and inaccurate information.

The entry of Google and eBay into the traditional advertising market is one more indication that the web is becoming much less a thing apart.

CNET is reporting that Google will begin selling radio and print ads, while eBay is building a pilot to sell cable TV ads. This allows both online companies to take advantage of their own expertise in selling advertising, while potentially opening new markets for advertising sellers.

While this is news, I expect that stories such as this will soon be commonplace.

To many people, the web seems to be a world of its own. It has enabled many new possibilities and changed the way business is done in many markets. But as time goes on, the web will become less and less distinct. It’s capabilities and patterns will merge with other methods and technologies, until the web seems as integral to business as overnight shipping.

While this convergence has been underway for some time, it will become increasingly important that businesses make sure their web presence blends completely with their entire customer or user experience. For most companies, there should be no more web projects. Instead, there should be business projects in which web technologies provide a major part of the solution.

On New Year’s Eve, I visited the Seattle Central Library and discovered a brilliant example of how form follows function. Designed by celebrated Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, the library is the physical embodiment of well-planned information architecture, with its attention to user needs, strategic grouping of information, and clear navigation—all integrated with cutting-edge design.

Koolhaas and his team strategically organized the space around its functions and uses. The old library’s collections were scattered across many floors, interspersed with multiple meeting places, administrative offices, and a learning center. Sometimes you had to go up several floors to continue searching the stacks for books you wanted. It was confusing. In the new library, users can ask for information on one level, hold meetings on another, relax in the Living Room, or browse the multiple-level Book Spiral.

One of the more interesting examples of the library’s organization is the Mixing Chamber on the fifth level. In the Mixing Chamber, you can get your questions answered by librarians who sit at desks under what look like several airport flight screens. These screens track real-time library data, like the total items in circulation and recently checked-out books, and are a case study in information visualization. The Mixing Chamber functions like a search engine, in that you can retrieve information by either talking directly to the librarians or by sitting down at one of the 148 (148!) computers and searching the catalogs or the web.

The architects also made it very easy to navigate the building. They consistently applied bright colors and large labels to help you get around. Chartreuse escalators cut across each floor; ruby red Lucite walls identify meeting rooms; oversized section titles (e.g. Fiction) designed by Bruce Mau are clearly visible from a distance; and a large Dewey decimal system is printed on the floors. You can literally browse the stacks by following the numbers like breadcrumbs.

The non-fiction collection located on the sixth through ninth levels is not only linked by escalators, but is built in one continuous spiral with a gradually ramping floor. The inspiration behind this Book Spiral was pure usability for staff and visitor alike. They wanted to allow the collection to grow without staff having to constantly move books and media up and down floors. And meanwhile visitors can wander up and down the spiral without thinking.

More than just the Book Spiral, the entire library demonstrates Steve Krug’s first principle of usability: Don’t make me think. You don’t have to worry about where you’re going or how to get there. And you won’t find yourself trapped in an out of the way room. The library is open and spacious throughout all eleven levels, and you have clear visibility of the other levels above and below you.

To top it off, the library blends modern architecture with green design. The building’s profile looks like an uneven stack of cards made of glass and steel. Its translucent structure and cantilevered platforms allow light to cascade down through the floors. It feels inviting because of the windows, the light, and the open spaces. Koolhaas used recycled wood for the floors and heat saving gratings for the ceiling. He also brought the landscape inside with plant images on green silk-screened carpets. Comfortable red foam chairs sit atop the carpets, making the bottom floor Living Room a great place to relax.

Sure, it may not appeal to everyone, but you can’t argue with the architects’ commitment to user-centered design. The overall effect is stunning. It’s such an inspiring landmark that there are probably as many gawking admirers wandering the floors as there are actual users. I know because I was one of them. If you ever get up to Seattle, I highly recommend checking it out.

The Apple iPhone brings a new opportunity for an improved user experience, by reducing the number of “interface designer cooks” in the “user experience kitchen.”

The announcement of the Apple iPhone has caused much excitement. People love the idea of having a single device that integrates many functions. While that proposition is interesting, my own excitement is because it represents a great opportunity for users to have an improved mobile phone experience.

The mobile experience is truly design by committee. The equipment maker creates a physical design for the phone, deciding on things like what buttons to include and the screen size. Then comes the operating system, which may or may not be created by the equipment manufacturer. On top of that, we add a batch of applications for managing certain types of information and controlling various functions of the phone.

The hapless consumer buys one of these handsets and signs up for a set of services provided by a carrier. They also gain access to an array of functionality, such as video or news feeds, that are produced by a variety of other entities.

The end result can be darn confusing. (I am trying to introduce “darn confusing” as a user experience term here.) The user may end up with several ways, or none, to synchronize their phone directory information with other sources. Functionality that should simply be a physical button, such as “mute,” may be buried somewhere in a menu labyrinth. Terminology is inconsistent, with generic and branded names for such basic things as voice mail.

But the Apple iPhone seems to promise a welcome change. Imagine the interface consistency possible when the hardware, operating system, and core applications are designed by a single company. The menus and the buttons might work together to make critical functions readily available. Applications might be fully aware of all handset capabilities. Perhaps there could even be consistent terminology.

Of course, the next logical step would be for Apple to buy a nation-wide mobile carrier to complete the package. This would allow a much more complete, consistent interface for the user by giving control of the end-to-end experience to a single entity. (I think this was one key factor in the success of the iPod.)

I know this runs completely counter to the idea of standards and open systems, and that is a concern. This is a business problem that would need to be resolved. Monopolies are not good for consumers, and even worse for innovation. But where have standards gotten us to date in the mobile experience? The result so far leaves something to be desired.

So, it will be interesting to see if Apple understands this opportunity they have and if they will use it to their full advantage. Something tells me they might. While I don’t have a strong desire to have a mobile phone that plays videos and music, I would love to have a more useful and usable device for my calls.

In the interest of being completely open and fair, I don’t think this idea is a particularly original one, but I can’t remember if it has been mentioned in print, or if I just remember it from discussions with friends. References to similar thoughts are welcome.

BTW, any handset designers are more than welcome to take their next conference call from my house while the dogs belonging to my neighbor to the left voice their displeasure at the demolition crew working on the house to my right. Consider it a quick field study to determine the relative importance of the “mute” button.

The elves have struck again! Amy took a couple weeks off around Christmas and returned to find her desk covered in about 100 feet of aluminum foil. First Pasquale, then Jackie… oh, when will they learn?!

The IA Summit proposal review board recently approved a presentation I proposed on “Mobile IA” using as a case study the mobile website we developed for HTC America. There’s a lot of interest in the IA community about developing for new interfaces as the Web increasing goes mobile, into our media centers, and so on. I’m very proud of the work we’ve been doing for HTC and am pleased to be able to showcase it in Las Vegas in March.

A while back I wanted to comment on Elton’s entry, Extractable - Extra! Extra! » Blog Archive » Information Architecture updated to 3.0, and draw on a post to the IxDA list by Jay Fienberg, talking about the Venn diagrams that might show how the various user experience roles and practices tend to overlap. It seems that each type of practitioner has a tendency to see their own specialty as central and the other practices as peripheral. This isn’t limited to UX folks. You can encounter this with developers and visual designers as well.

One thing I really love about Extractable is the collaborative nature of the people here. No one seems to exhibit the sort of hubris that says “my practice is central - the rest of you need to follow my lead.” Instead there’s a true recognition that a fine user experience (based on a sensitive information architecture, incorporating engaging and immersive visual and interactive design, driven by a stable and responsive application) can only emerge from a process that enables a multidisciplinary team to collaborate as equals.

So, back to Jay’s point. He was responding to a list post by David Fiorito (itself in response to a thread following about the IA 3.0 blog entry by Peter Morville linked in Elton’s piece), in which David said, “Imagine a Venn diagram - one circle is IxD, one IA, and one ID,” as well as, “usability is the means by which we validate IA, IxD, and ID.”

Jay responded (and now I’m going to quote him in full because, well because I don’t think he’ll mind):

I’d add to that Venn diagram:

• content strategy / management
• visual design / graphic arts
• taxonomy

I’m thinking of a Venn diagram that represents possible approaches to dealing with “information challenges” (starting at a level or two up from requirements and objectives / needs*).

The areas of overlap in the diagram represent approaches shared by many or all of the disciplines. These common approaches tend to be sufficient for smaller challenges, e.g., there are zillions of web designers who design simple sites, and whose design encompasses IA, IxD, ID, and graphic art.

But, each discipline has special approaches that are unique to itself. These unique approaches are either important or essential for dealing with bigger information challenges.

I recently worked on a project that had at least one person doing each role of: IA, taxonomy, IxD, visual design, and usability. We also could have used a dedicated content strategist and a dedicated content manager. And, some time from a dedicated ID would have been nice too. We needed each person to do things that the others could not do - or, would not ever get to do, given the range and priority of issues.

* Jesse James Garrett’s “The Elements of User Experience” diagram still stands as a pretty good model for of all of this stuff. We might imagine this Venn diagram we’re talking about as a flattened version of Jesse’s diagram. Note that Jesse is probably smarter than all of us for looking at this in two dimensions rather than one - the IA / IxD dichotomy seems like a very minor division in the total scope of factors accounted for in Jesse diagram!

I’ll follow up by noting that Morville has his own honeycomb diagram that places findability in among usability, accessibility and other -bilities. Another famous IA Peter, Peter Boersma, has also popularized the concept of T-shaped people to help explain the sort of well rounded people who often end up architecting information, designing interactions, making interfaces easier to use and so on. They may tend to have a specialty (the “leg” of the T) but they are also broad and have some familiarity with and interest in a series of other “pillar” disciplines (the crossbar of the T - it’s easier to visualize with Peter’s diagrams).

I expect to see these conceptual discussions continue, perhaps at one degree of abstraction (we are all diagram people after all), where instead of practices competing for centrality we’ll see models of how the practices relate to each other competing for supremacy. Good times.

A while back Erik Guttman posted an item to IxDA list discussing the role user research plays in product design:

I have repeatedly attempted to explain how user research can serve to identify, prioritize and clarify product requirements. I have difficulty for a variety of reasons.

• people confuse or fail to see the distinction between inbound marketing research activities with user research
• people fail to distinguish between customers and users
• people do not understand the qualitative methods used to perform user research
• people often confuse user research with usability studies

To clarify these relationships, he created this user research context map, and he’s interested in getting feedback on the subject.