IDblog: Dirk on ID

Dirk on ID

In case you were wondering, no, I hadn't missed Dirk's Information Design: The Understanding Discipline over on Boxes and Arrows. I'd been holding off because it raises a bunch of issues for me that I'm hoping to mull over and write up, perhaps a bit more formally than a blog entry. There's another, somewhat related concept I've also been bouncing back and forth in my brain, and that's looking at how diffusion of innovation theory (the framework for my master's thesis) applies to this issue of having UCD-related work "valued" by business. More later (she hopes).

But two quick comments about Dirk's article. First, I'm less inclined than Dirk to see information design as THE overarching discipline. I like that he argues it (it creates some opposition to others who would claim it :), but I think that it is hard not to tar ID with the same brush that others have been: when something has such a strong tactical component (the "little" piece), it is (IMO) a Sisyphean task to create real consensus among disparate groups that it is "the" overarching discipline (yet to be contrary, I'm not sure that creating new titles works either).

The other comment is related to the ID as director analogy. Dirk no longer believes in that, preferring instead to say that "information design is the integrator that brings other disciplines together to create excellent information solutions."

Hmmm...isn't a director an integrator who brings disciplines together to create an excellent information solution? Anyways, I don't want to beat this into the ground. But that said, I'm annoyed that I didn't write down what Sydney Pollack said in the commercial for the Alfred Hitchcock episode of his "Essentials" series on TMC. It was something to the effect that one of the things that made Hitchcock stand out as a director was his use of the medium to add to the story. It struck me as an interesting possibility for the ID as director concept.

08:51 PM | linkme | home

Comments

"an integrator who brings disciplines together to create an excellent [..] solution?"

In the film world, this sounds more like a producer than a director.

-- Posted by eric scheid on July 31, 2003 11:06 PM

Beth,

Regarding ID being already branded as a tactical discipline, I'm not sure if that is true. While different groups are treating it thusly, they are largely doing so in significantly different ways and in the context of different skills (writing here, visual design there, information architecture still over there). More, if you really look at the *definitions* that they use, it speaks to something that is more broad than the tactical contexts. So, since there is not anything even approaching an agreed upon tactical manifestation for ID, and that the basic definitions that people use are broad/suggest cross-disciplinary application, I don't think it is quite the Sisyphean task that you anticipate. Sure, some select camps are strongly opposed to that. But, by and large, looking across the available landscape of stakeholders and industry groups, the opportunity is actually quite rich.

Regarding the similarities you point out between "director" and "integrator," I definitely agree. The difference, in my mind, is director connotes control and power whereas integrator connotes collaboration for a better common good. And that is more of where I see the role of ID among other disciplines - making connections as opposed to directing or being in control. But you are quite right that there are a variety of distinct similarities.

And as to the question of "director/producer," do any of you watch "Project Greenlight" on HBO? It is a "reality show" where Miramax sponsors inexperienced film directors (and writers) to make a movie. Using that as a foundation - along with my experiences in the theater as a young 'un, here are how I would categorize parallels between their industry and ours:

Director = Design Director (highest ranking creative)
Producer = Project Manager
Executive Producer = Account Executive (highest ranking business)
Cinematographer = Art Director
First Assistant Director = Visual Designer
Writer = Writer

And just for fun, here is a blurb from someone's posting at IMDb about how "Project Greenlight" captures the spirit of some of the more dysfunctional project teams I have had the (dis)pleasure of working on in our industry. Seeing it written out, I laughed out loud, realizing the similarities, and what "we" all put up with in the course of doing business:

"To quote a misguided fellow IMDb user on a 'Battle Of Shaker Heights' thread: 'Kyle and Efram ARE doing their jobs. Directors write, they rewrite.' Whether or not this is truly a director's job is arguable and I won't even go into it. My question is, why are they rewriting each scene without the author of the screenplay present? Should someone remind them that they didn't write 'The Battle of Shaker Heights'? Couldn't they at least have called Erica? When Chris suspects Kyle and Effram of attempting to sneak their own rewrites into the film, I have no choice but to agree with him."

-- Posted by Dirk on August 2, 2003 11:12 AM

ID may not be universally branded as tactical, but from my perspective, ID has as much tactical baggage as IA does. In IA, it is the library science component. In ID, it is the visual communication component (primarily typography and graphic design).

For years, the IIID (the current organization focusing on information design) has described their efforts this way: "At this point of the development IIID is concerned with the design of visual information ..." (from their definitions page). Their president is the well known typographer, Erik Spiekermann. And beyond IIID, there is a nearly 25 year history of the Information Design Journal whose archives describe what I would call primarily tactical activities.

There's also Rune Pettersson's book, Information Design, which I've called the ID polar bear book. It focuses on issues related to text and graphic design.

It's very true that these activities have not exactly been mainstream news over here on this side of the pond (despite efforts on a number of fronts in the mid 90s). But it is certainly what I mean when I talk about ID's tactical component, and when you add it all up, I think it is a substantial attribute of ID. And thus is likely to lead to problems positioning ID as an overarching discipline.

And that's not even getting into Richard Saul Wurman's problem with the word design issue!

-- Posted by Beth on August 3, 2003 05:49 PM