Comments on Leaving the Autoroute

nec — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

The only thing I can add to the “jack of all trades (master of none) theory is that when you work at a small agency (and do everything), very often times you wind up being somewhat mediocre at all of them. And even if you are relatively good at most of them, you’re widely varied skill sets come in most handy at another small shop. Moving up to a Fortune 500 company can be harder when you don’t have the specific, specialized experience in one or two areas. I worked at a small shop where I served as copywriter, information designer, account executive, strategic planner, and project manager for Web and print projects. By the time I had been there for five years, I had a ton of experience at doing a lot of different things…but was not qualified per se to get a job at a large agency doing any ONE of those things because my portfolio was too thin in any given area. I had in effect, made myself unemployable. Fortunately, I had enough experience in the Web field to land a job as an information designer at a large company where the benefits are good and my skills in one area are appreciated—and rewarded. Just a musing from the mistress of many trades…

rxc — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

Surprising you didn’t use the “jack of all trades, master of none” (mis)quote. To summarize, you are saying one needs to be a “jack of all trades, master of one.”

Or, as Robert Heinlein, the famous sci-fi authoer put it: “A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

denny — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

For the past ten years I’ve lived not far from Lagioule, the village of knives, in a town known for Toulouse-Lautrec and Gaillac wine, so it was extra-fun to read about your voyage and insights.

I have spent the greater part of my professional career flipping from specialist to generalist to know-nothing then back again. I firmly support your belief that specialists should be ‘flattened out’ a little, understand a little better what the others do and why. But there is danger of overshoot, don’t you think, in following your markers too closely? Do I see IA Lite coming down the autoroute?

Derek R — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:44 GMT

To further take up space, it may be important to note that distinction of profession and separation of duty goes nowhere far towards ‘doing the work,’ and that, although common tongue and genuine understanding is noble-in-pursuit, having the neatness of shelved categories (of duty) is ‘position,’ not ‘action’ in orientation, so that, it is better to conjoin (ring) yourself in fellowship, to exist in uncertainty (if that is indeed, for you, how it must be) all the while in performance of duty—to recognize the Pyramids were not built by standing around discussing role-definition.

I’ll shut-up now and go create something beautiful.

Derek R — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:43 GMT

How about Sheep Design ?

Sheep Design
Concerned only with what is dictated (no thought)

Let’s just ignore the user and shuffle them into convenient categories we can use to sell books (and ourselves) $$$!

Karol — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:43 GMT

I agree. Where I work, we promote the idea of User Experience Architects, and one of the better definitions I found of User Experience comes from Challis Hodge & BrainBox Aug 20, 2002 –
” The combination of these roles in practice is often described as Experience Design. The result of their combined effort is likewise referred to as the User Experience.

Information Design
Concerned with the categorization and structure of information

Interface Design
Concerned with creating controls to make use of structured information

Interaction Design
Concerned with human interaction with controls over time

Immersion Design
Concerned with human interaction in context of use”

Although I would swap Immersion Design (and give up the 4th “I” word) and go for Usability Design – focusing on usable and useful design.

Michael — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:43 GMT

Excellent, Christina. I think one of the interesting things about this industry, especially when working in small agencies or in small departments that do web development, is that a lot of people have no choice but to be diversified in their skills and knowledgeable of what their colleagues do. I’ve also met more philosophy, religion, art, [insert non-science discipline here], people that are programmers in the last five years than I would have ever expected. It always surprises me when I hear what experiences people bring to their craft.

mantruc — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:43 GMT

Great article christina, fun to read.

Since I started specializing in this IA stuff, I realized that it is very Leonardo-esque. Leonardo dreamed about the ‘Universal Man’, who is a specialist at everything, and made it his personal goal. I can’t think of anyone more talented than him in history.

As you say, we need to know as much as we can about every part of the job, it can be hard, but hell it’s fun.

Maybe Da Vinci could be our new mascot, eh?

christina — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:43 GMT

and we are all together. kookooachoo I am the walrus.

Sorry, just got giddy for a second….

Derek R — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:43 GMT

There is no us vs. them
—> there is ‘us’ and we are we.

Beau Lebens — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:43 GMT

A great article Christina, and very much along the line that I take in most things I do. My ethos is that it’s *all* information, and most of it involves *interaction*. I think you can see where I’m going with that. Just because an experience isn’t digital, doesn’t mean it can’t teach you something about digital experience design. Just because information is represented on a sign, in a mall, in a cookbook or scribbled on a wall, it may well tell you something useful about designing information in a digital environment.

I have come to the conclusion that I am in fact an information addict.

I have previous experience mostly in the programming side of things, as well as the design side. I can code a website from scratch using notepad, so I know what loads and what doesn’t, what’s possible, what’s beneficial and what’s too hard to be worth the pay-off. I am making a transition I believe into Information Architecture and perhaps Interaction Design. I have started linking just about everything that happens around me, from business discussions to going down to the local shops into some form of IA-related theory. I have always held strong opinions about the organisation of files, folders and drives on computers, and I think there are some big improvements that could be made there.

What I am getting at, and indeed what has really appealed to me so far in the field, is that I think Information Architecture is all about specialising in generalising. It’s about being a professional at everything *all at once*. Because “we” (if I can group myself in there quite yet) strive to bring everything from the interface to the database into line for the user. So from that aim, we need to know “everything” (in a broad sense at least) about everything from the person sitting (or standing, or walking or whatever) and requesting something, all the way back to the database that chugs away to deliver what they want.

This is a tough call. In the words of a really bad Palmolive (Pantene?) TV commercial – “It won’t heppen overnight, but it will heppen.” (happen said in a Kiwi accent :)

As Christina has said – it’s not a debate over specialisation OR generalisation, it’s about both. I think this is a gem of wisdom indeed, and I hope that people really listen, and take it on board. I hope at the same time everyone out there is “life-long-learning” themselves to exhaustion, because you will *never* know all there is to know, *especially* in a field like IA – that’s what I love about it!

Paul Nattress — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:43 GMT

I couldn’t agree more Christina.

I have a degree in Graphic Design that specialised in advertising copywriting and found that I could work with copywriters and graphic designers much better because I understood the principles of their craft and I respected their work and decisions (because I had produced that sort of work and had made those decisions in the past).

I’ve tried to learn all of this fancy coding stuff but I’m just not cut out for it. However, I will sit down with coders and try to learn more about what they do. I will buy those Sams Teach Yourself “rocket science/JavaScript/brain surgery” in 24 hours books and make an attempt to learn about it. Why? Because if I know what coders can do and what they can’t do then I’m half way to speaking their language. And that is always a big help.

To work in a team, you have to have respect for, and respect from the people you work with. Learning more about what they do and talking to them in their own language is a great step towards this.