Ken,

I hope to get time over the next couple of days to produce the post
on how these issues are important to design research, design
education, and design practice. In the mean time, a few of short
replies:

[snip]
>For example, McGovern writes, "Much web design has suffered from an
>over reliance on graphic design principles. Too many graphic
>designers have tried to force the Web to be what it is not, in the
>process creating ineffective and sometimes unusable websites. Quality
>web design is driven by information architecture design principles.
>Graphic design should support these principles."
>
>You respond "he is attacking 'graphic design principles' without
>specifying what that means. What is a reasonable observer to believe?"
>
>This is a misreading. McGovern is not attacking "graphic design principles."

I stand corrected. He did not attack "graphic design principles" but
rather the over-reliance on them. I still have no idea what said
principles are and he (and you) have offered no specific advice on
where the reader might find out what those principles are. Is it part
of his good IA approach to have terms which would cause many readers
to assume something (absent modifying definition) in one place
without any connection to the place where the modifying definition or
indication that such information even exists?

[snip]
>He is specific if you want to read and locate his specific arguments.

Considering our earlier discussions about footnotes, I'll have to
side with your articulate arguments for specificity in reference.

[snip]
>Your post to the list argues the importance of graphic designers
>rather than stating the case for principles.

Having practiced graphic design for a couple of decades, written on
the subject, done graduate studies and received a degree on the
subject, and taught the subject for many years, I probably should
know what these principles are but I have to admit still being in the
dark. Am I the only one who doesn't understand?

[snip] quoting me:
>-snip-
>
>. . . And information architects, librarians, and organizational
>planners who undertake websites should get the advice and services of
>graphic designers and get the most out of that. Insulting,
>marginalizing, and alienating graphic designers strikes me as
>counterproductive at best. It tends to place graphic designers in a
>subservient position that prevents us from doing our jobs well.
>
>-snip-
>
>This paragraph seems problematic in three respects.
>
>(1) Some kinds of Web sites do not require graphic design advice.
>Graphic design services are expensive. They constitute a high expense
>relative to the low cost of developing and maintaining some kinds of
>sites.

And -some- sites do not require any thinking about information
architecture. So?

>A site large enough to require an information architect may require
>the services of a graphic designer. There are cases where a library
>Web site simply does not, and neither do many small organization
>sites.

Whether a library site requires the services of someone who calls
herself "graphic design" is beside the point. Any library site would
benefit from a real consideration of graphic design. So?

>(2) McGovern does not insult graphic designers. It seems to me any
>sensible designer would tend to agree with him and prefer his
>principles to the shabby work produced by so many graphic design
>firms.

Many graphic designers (this one included) have used and promoted
much of what you call "his" principles. Many of us decry most of what
goes on in the name of graphic design. He did not object to bad
graphic design or inappropriate graphic design or mindlessly narrow
graphic design or overreaching graphic design. In a statement that
does not condemn [add any of the above adjectives] information
architecture principles he does object to the over-reliance on [no
adjective] graphic design principles. Not even [adjective] graphic
design but -graphic design principles-.

>There is a reasonable explanation for why so many graphic design
>firms do such bad work. Graphic design firms tend to be paid for

There are many reasons that many graphic design firms do bad work.
There are many reasons that many information architects and many
other people do bad work. You have started to hit on the important
points here:

What are the best contributions of graphic design to what specific
sorts of projects?

What are the social and business structures that will make that
contribution most fruitful?

[snip series of anecdotes, etc.]

You object to my objection to your reply that McGovern is right much
of the time because I have made a caricature of his views so I will
try to restate without caricature:

1) He defines the web in a singular fashion, dismissing any sites
that do not fit his description but not defining the limits of his
-singular- web.

2) He, based on this conceptual model and limited view of the
problem(s), declares his principles to be important and dismisses
principles (sorry, over-reliance on them) without defining them or
indicating what proper reliance is.

3) In this manner he lets a reasonable reader infer that his
principles will form THE basis of any worthwhile effort on the web.

>Second, and more important, you seem unwilling to acknowledge that a
>position based on research can be correct in many respects without
>being correct in all respect. Without getting into a debate on the
>philosophy of science, I'll say that one might use words other than
>correct here - words such as adequate, appropriate, substantive, and
>so on, would do.

I fully and willingly acknowledge that. I have never failed to
acknowledge that. I have never denied that. What makes me "seem" that
way and why is my rhetorical style the issue when McGovern's is
irrelevant and anyone who notices it some sort of Luddite or mystic?

My specific objection is that he not only does not acknowledge the
limits of his view, but he oversteps the limits. In this sense his
position is as untenable as that of the many graphic designers whose
work he rightly objects to. His tendencies fall on the edges of what
Phil Agre calls "scientism."

>It is inappropriate to accuse McGovern of lying like a television
>preacher or a politician. He has a research position. He argues a
>case from his position.

The comparison between religion and scientism is pretty easy. You're
making me think that the TV preacher analogy works better than I'd
intended. Thanks.

>This depth and scope of research provides McGovern with a substantial
>empirical foundation for his views. Unless you have been visiting
>3,000 sites a year, with formal research projects on a few hundred,
>my guess is that McGovern has researched more Web sites than you have
>done while doing a kind of research and an amount of research that
>you have not. McGovern has been immersed in this field during a
>decade in which you have been active in other kinds of design work
>and in teaching design.
>
>This means that McGovern's views deserve consideration aside from the
>rhetoric you dislike.

They do. I would be glad to talk specifically about any of his views,
many (perhaps most) of which I support. That some of his views are
solid and important but his rhetoric destructive makes me think of
some TV preachers. (It keeps looking better. Thanks.)

>McGovern has articulated a series of useful principles in his
>articles and books.
>
>If you strip away any rhetoric on which you may have a complaint, the
>useable and clearly explained positive principles remain.
>
>This is a discussion list focused on issues in design research. In
>asking you to ignore the rhetoric, I ask you to consider McGovern's
>research and the principles he articulates.

Perhaps I misunderstand the nature of this list. Would you (and
others) please clarify? I had assumed that the relationship of
research and researchers to practice and practitioners would have
been a central subject of this list. Please let me know if I was
mistaken and I will be silent.

[snip]
>That is not relevant to most
>of us when we search for Web information.

Here you do exactly what McGovern does. You redefine things narrowly
to suit your argument and then object to anything beyond your
definition. Does McGovern say "I give advice to those who are
concerned solely with the 'search for Web information' and those who
have any other motivations than the accommodation of this search
should talk to someone else"?

[snip]
>You may be right that his language is sharp. It is my view that he
>has not given much attention to winning votes among graphic

My objection was not to sharp language but to dull language. Peter's
much sharper language that I quoted was amusing and often apt. It was
constructive and reasonably precise. It attempted to engage those who
would be part of the team on any large project and build
relationships and dialog. McGovern's was the reverse.

[snip]
>If you have a problem with McGovern's specific points or his research
>findings or his thinking, explain what is wrong with his views on the
>issues. McGovern's opinion about the graphic design profession is
>irrelevant. You asked my opinion of his ideas, not his language.

Anyone who believe that how something is said is not part of what is
said misunderstands as much as someone who rejects all research.

Gunnar
--
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
536 South Catalina Street
Ventura CA 93001-3625
USA

+1 805 667 2200
[log in to unmask]

http://www.gunnarswanson.com