GANTT games at Oz-IA

To try and combat post-lunch snoozing at last year’s OzIA, I circulated a hotel pad with the following question on it:

 What does GANTT stand for? Have a guess and pass it on.

The answers were:

 Get Another New Time Trap

Good Architects Need Time Tables

Girly Terrible Tablets

Great Amebeous Nervewracked Thought Taker

Gigantic Antisocial Nonsensical Talent Thief

Gutteral African Nose-lead Temper Tantrum

Goosey Arse-whipped Nebulous Tabular Terror

Interestingly enough, I came across the above when tidying up my townhouse prior to heading off to Miami for IASummit.

For the benefit of the thick: I know that GANTT is not actually an acronym, and that it is named for Henry Gantt. It’s just a game :)

So, which is your favourite? Can you think of a better one? :)

Posted in IA Community | Leave a comment

Is IA more than just not screwing up?

Donna and I went on a roadtrip today with her daughter Amber to complete the family Christmas visits. Along the way we discussed the content for her revamped website, and with it, the business benefits of IA.

Try as we might, we couldn’t come up with anything better than “You are going to do this stuff anyway – structure a site and some content to satisfy a business need. Hire me or some other smart person and we’ll help you to not screw it up”.

Can this be all there is?

Posted in Definition, Information Architecture | 3 Comments

Knowledge Worker: Redundant concept through ubiquosity or elitism?

Steve Collins wrote the following:

Shawn Callahan of Anecdote argues that the need for the term knowledge worker is redundant now that technology is ubiquitous in the developed world and that almost every worker trades in knowledge of some sort. He sees its use as a way to discriminate between identified knowledge workers and those whose roles are not traditionally viewed this way:

It’s an dark undercurrent and tacitly becomes a basis for discrimination. “Our salespeople are knowledge workers but our gas fitters are not.” I suspect this feeling of superiority comes from the erroneous data-information-knowledge model where knowledge (and even more ridiculously, wisdom) sits at the pinnacle of the pyramid.

I see where Shawn is going with his argument, particularly in developed nations. But I agree with Matthew Hodgson, who puts forth an alternative position that Shawn’s views are misplaced. Matthew argues that Shawn misses an opportunity to communicate an understanding of knowledge work outward from the insider community to the larger workforce and organisational management who don’t necessarily label themselves as knowledge workers – “Oh, no! I work in marketing/HR/finance/logistics/whatever.”

This is the story so far as I can tell:

  • Shawn sees every worker as a knowledge worker and worries about discrimination against perceived non-knowledge workers.
  • Matt is worried about over-generalisation that implies an under-specialisation of the knowledge worker role, and what might happen in a world without knowledge workers.
  • Steve is worried that people might read Shawn’s post and think that identified knowledge workers are no longer necessary.

Generally speaking, these guys know what they are on about. All three are respected within their own fields of endeavour. By the tone of the three posts, we can probably guess that Shawn doesn’t identify as a knowledge worker – but Matt and Steve do, and are looking to defend the distinct identity of the term.

There is a discrimination, if subtle, against non-knowledge workers by those who see themselves as being different. I’ve seen it.  Wherever one profession sets themselves above another, there are territorial disputes – this piece of the project is mine, that is yours, don’t touch. Following the example set in IA recon, I think that the defenders of the concept need to separate knowledge worker as a role from knowledge work as an activity – then they may find more common ground with people like Shawn (and I) who see the role as devalued but the activity as essential.

Posted in Knowledge Management | 1 Comment

Dodo: Information silos in action/inaction

Insanity took me a couple of months ago and I’ve been a Dodo customer (of sorts) ever since. I say “of sorts” because they haven’t provided me with much of any kind of service yet, and they haven’t billed me so I haven’t paid them. It’s a funny relationship.

Dodo has issues. Here is a rough timeline:

  • A couple of months ago I filled out a Dodo website form, seeking further information on their broadband/landline plans.
  • A few days later a salesrep called, and I confirmed the broadband/landline deal with him.
  • The following week, a technical salesrep called, and said that I would have to pay an extra $300 or so for my landline as I wasn’t getting broadband at the same time. This is where things went seriously wrong – I spent an hour and a half on the phone to them, talking to representatives of five different departments. Five. The first couple of people I spoke to couldn’t be convinced that I had originally ordered the broadband and landline together, and the next three departments were concerned with cancelling the original order. I repeatedly sought assurance that they were going to be sending me a broadband router.
  • The landline was connected a couple of weeks back. Surprise surprise, they sent the technicians to the wrong address, so these guys were wandering up and down my street calling me on their mobiles as they couldn’t believe that they had been sent to the wrong place. I know Dodo have my right address, as they have sent me mail here.

I do have the landline – it does work, woohoo, but still no broadband, and no router.

If this was an isolated incident then I would be feeling a bit paranoid – but Dodo is infamous for the highest number of complaints of any Australian ISPtwice that of runner-up Bigpond.

Where do they go so wrong? My guess, based on receiving-end experience, is that they have an information silo issue. Judging by the accents they have three different sets of call centres – one or more in Australia, one in India, and one in the Phillipines. There is nothing wrong with overseas call centres – they make good business sense when they are set up correctly – but when a routine foulup requires action by five different departments that don’t seem to talk to one another (and there is no effective resolution of the issue) then I have to guess that the information just isn’t being passed from one department to the next.

I’ve seen this happen on client site as well, and it always strikes me as an opportunity to change for the better. If consulting opportunity is the intersection of chaos and money, then all Dodo needs is the money. Chaos they have in abundance.

Posted in Knowledge Management | 1 Comment

When collaborative interface design goes wrong…

The tale can now be told.

Wikipedia defines the Dunning-Kruger effect as:

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge.

The phenomenon was demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999.[1]

Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” (as Charles Darwin put it). They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree,

  1. incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill,
  2. incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others,
  3. incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy,
  4. if they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

I did not just quietly observe this – I actively saw it happen around me.

  • Third party company business analysts being left to run wild and free doing interface and interaction design.
  • Project managers turning a blind eye because it is in the third party company contract and “we’ll pick up on that user stuff in UAT (user acceptance testing)”.
  • Removal of usability and accessibility testing from all pre-UAT stages because it might expose too many errors.
  • Third party company folks not providing a complete set of prototypes until UAT because they may have to change them if users complain.

And no, I’m not kidding. I wish that I was. I’m not naming names because (a) I’m no longer on that project and (b) to do so would be unprofessional.

Posted in Information Architecture | Leave a comment

WebBlast Canberra 2007: Yes, it was a blast! :)

WebBlast Canberra 2007 took place on 12 December 2007.

The success of the evening was a credit to the organisational skills of co-convenor Gavin Dispain. This is the second time that he and I (and a lot of volunteers) have got together to make an end-of-year social occasion that is open to everyone within the web industry – managing directors, web managers, information architects, graphic designers, university lecturers, students, and account managers.

This is me, slumped in a chair exhausted at the end of the evening:

andrew_relaxes.jpg

It was great, but by 9PM or so (when this photo was taken) I’d pretty much adrenalined myself into a stupor :)

Everyone seemed to have fun – and there was the added bonus of a lot of business-related networking in amongst the celebration.

seething_mass.JPG

The chap hoisting his glass in the far background is none other than our own Stephen Hall. Also visible in this photo are Susan Schuller, Susan MacGillivray, Scott Ward, Paul Cooper, Andrew Meers, John Kennedy, Steve Collins, and many more besides. If you are in this shot and I haven’t mentioned you, please accept my apologies – leave me a comment :)

WebBlast Canberra 20o7 would not have been possible without the enthusiastic support of the following sponsors:
SMS Management and Technology
MaadMob

OPC

Funnelback

SitePoint

Maxamine

AcidLabs

Web Directions South

And to the volunteers, my undying thanks:

  • Genevieve Boyd
  • Duncan Buchanan,
  • Rae Buerckner,
  • Brett Campbell,
  • Paul Cooper,
  • Pippa Hague,
  • Stephen Hall,
  • Gabrielle Hodgson,
  • Matthew Hodgson,
  • John Kennedy,
  • Donna Maurer,
  • Kathy Smalley,
  • Scott Ward,
  • last but certainly not least, Jenny Wookey.

Note: Photos used in this article were kindly taken by Matthew Hodgson – please see his Flickr gallery for more.

Posted in IA Community | Leave a comment

Why I’m over FaceBook

…social backbone of the web, open platform of the future, brave new world, business/social networking paradise, all things to all people, the new Google, blah blah blah.

If it is so wonderful why do I have to go to a browser and log in to interact? Didn’t Skype and Twitter solve this ages ago? Where’s the ubiquosity? The seemless desktop integration? Sheesh!

Posted in Social Computing | 2 Comments

Fitts’s Law

Fitts’s Law basically says that if you make something bigger and more clickable, it is easier to click on. Terrible truism but ultimate proof that common sense isn’t.

If you want to get Fitts’s Law, or explain it to a client that doesn’t quite understand, send them to this post.

Word up to Daring Fireball for the nudge.

Posted in Interface Design | Leave a comment

Web form validation: Opera does it better

I was researching an article for PortaBlogger and came across this web form validation/confirmation mechanism on the Opera Community site:

my-opera-registration.jpg

As the form fields are filled in, the green check icon appears for a valid entry – in real time. Here’s an example – I entered the first four letters (Andr) of my desired username (AndrewBoyd), and saw this:

my-opera-registration2.jpg

Isn’t that cool? I don’t have to fill out the whole form then wait for 30 seconds while it decides whether my state should be Alabama or ACT before it tells me that I need to choose another user ID. Not only that, it suggests alternates on the fly without getting in the way.

I’m working on a project with Matthew Hodgson at the moment where we’re having to look at intelligent data entry validation mechanisms, so this is very timely.

I can’t fault it – if you would, go to the Opera Community site and have a play with it – if you can find a hole in this as the friendliest form validation ever, please let me know.

Posted in Interface Design | 2 Comments

Death of Email: A sign?

There seems to be a growing backlash against email. Anne Zelenka certainly is not a big fan. So while I disagreed with Anne at the time, I’ve been watching for indications that she may have been right – and perhaps she was (and is).

Nick O’Neill from allfacebook writes:

I think that perhaps Facebook will slowly become the place where I do most of my communication with friends and email will be used for my less close contacts. Jeremiah Owyang commented on this today. His younger sister says that she “only uses email to communicate with old people.” Bottom line, Facebook messaging has become a more effective way of communicating with people on a daily basis. Additionally, they have a great way of threading conversations just like Gmail does. Have you had the same experience of using Facebook as an alternative to email messages?

I would have to say that even as a newcomer to Facebook, I have had long rambling conversations that could well have been and email thread. Scary stuff. Between BBS netmail and email I’ve spent untold time in the last fifteen or so years having similar conversations.

Posted in Social Computing | 5 Comments