taxonomy

13 Jan 2007 - 10:33am
7 years ago
5 replies
551 reads
Mark Schraad
2006

Hello all,

After reading and posting here for a while, I believe that a great
deal of our unresolved disagreements are caused by the various types
of projects we work on. Certainly the consumer facing information web
site has different design constraints than the inward facing
corporate application. These may not be taken into account when
discussing our favorite approach such as UCD or GCD or whatever it is
Hoekman does (sorry Robert, just messing with you). If only broken
down into the categories of software and web sites, the process,
research, user behavior, and testing methodologies will all differ.

I have been looking for a taxonomy of project types that an
information architect or interaction designer might work on - but
have yet to locate one. Has anybody seen or built one? I would
hypothesize that the specification of the project type might help to
better focus our discussions and advance the thought process.
Additionally it might eliminate some of the circular discussions I
read with no clear resolve. I believe the specific applications of
theory are not so much the cause of disagreement as the type of
work. If not, it might be a great collaborative project for this forum.

I will give it a start and look forward to changes, correction and
embellishments.

Mark

Project types:

Internal organizational application - long learning curve - frequent use
Internal organizational application - client server application
Client server application - broad distribution (in a box)
Single use application - broad distribution (in a box)
Utility software
Add-on software (plug ins and such)
Widgets (as called in Mac OSX)
Widgets (as in component modules for assembling into full applications)

Corporate web sites (online brochures)
Web / ecommerce
Web / information resource
Web / intranet
Web / extranet
Web / portal
Web / blog
Web / wiki
Web / application (2.0 ??? - I know there is still not full agreement
on what this means)

Small screen application (palm, phone, gps, etc.)

Specialized aps for proprietary hardware (the UPS tablet for example)

Comments

13 Jan 2007 - 12:17pm
milan
2005

Hi!

> I have been looking for a taxonomy of project types that an
> information architect or interaction designer might work on - but
> have yet to locate one.

I'd add Corporate Interaction Styleguide to the list - that would be a
style guide containing interaction guidelines and patterns along with
visual (ci-compliant) and technical implementations. I worked on a
project like that as an interaction designer, so i think it should be
included.

And mobile seems to be more a technical term than an application type, I
mean you can realise different app types on a mobile platform. So it
would be another axis if you put it into a matrix or table.

Maybe mobile - consumer, mobile - intranet, mobile - e-commerce / web -
consumer, web - intranet / desktop - consumer .... ?

Regards
milan
--
||| | | |||| || |||||||| | || | ||
milan guenther * interaction design
p +33 3 8344 7838 * milan at guenther.cx

13 Jan 2007 - 2:45pm
.pauric
2006

A different take on how to better understand each other, help readers
appreciate your context. I think our application of terminology depends
very much on where & who we work with as well as what we work on. It will
always be applied differently. Maybe your project could also highlight a
super set of critical information, an IxD calling card, see my sig for a
glancing stab at what this might be.

So, when I'm talking to a consultant I'll know to both read their comments
in context as well as slant my taxonomy towards what they're familiar with.

regards - pauric

--
Environment: In house
Field: Embedded application interfaces. Web/CLI.

13 Jan 2007 - 2:55pm
Mark Schraad
2006

You are right... another axis that these projects could be plotted on
is the type of organization. In house corp, org, freelance,
consultant, design house, agency, startup, ap dev, etc. As this
taxonomy takes shape... this might be e worthy field in a db. Good
thought.

Mark

On Jan 13, 2007, at 2:45 PM, pauric wrote:

> A different take on how to better understand each other, help readers
> appreciate your context. I think our application of terminology
> depends
> very much on where & who we work with as well as what we work on.
> It will
> always be applied differently. Maybe your project could also
> highlight a
> super set of critical information, an IxD calling card, see my sig
> for a
> glancing stab at what this might be.
>
> So, when I'm talking to a consultant I'll know to both read their
> comments
> in context as well as slant my taxonomy towards what they're
> familiar with.
>
> regards - pauric
>
> --
> Environment: In house
> Field: Embedded application interfaces. Web/CLI.
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://listguide.ixda.org/
> List Help .................. http://listhelp.ixda.org/
> (Un)Subscription Options ... http://subscription-options.ixda.org/
> Announcements List ......... http://subscribe-announce.ixda.org/
> Questions .................. lists at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://ixda.org/
> Resource Library ........... http://resources.ixda.org

13 Jan 2007 - 9:47pm
Mark Schraad
2006

Jack - thanks for the comments...

On Jan 13, 2007, at 7:32 PM, jackbellis.com wrote:

> Mark,
> 1) There's no question that we frequently talk at cross purposes,
> which is as common 'on the list' as in every software conference
> room I've been in.

There are a lot of professionals contributing to this list, bringing
a variety of backgrounds, skill sets and experiences to the
conversations. It is sometimes difficult to know the orientation of
any one contributor, but that is usually easier to determine than the
specific application of methods.

> 2) I think even your initial stab at the taxonomy demonstrates that
> it is more a list of unrelated dimensions (marketing, information,
> interaction, etc.) than a taxonomy, which I assume implies a set of
> increasingly inclusive, broader-narrower domains.

Frankly, I just typed in a list of applications that fall into the
larger category of interface and interaction design. Certainly an
early first sep in developing a taxonomy. There are contributors on
this list with much more specific experience - both length of
experience and breadth of work. I am looking for a broader set of
insights than just my own. I have a design, a marketing, and a
business background. I work hard and not thinking so categorically
(this being a potential exception) so I am always likely to include
business strategy, market intelligence, information hierarchies and
marketing research into a design discussion.

> 3) Are you optimistic that even the most successful definition of
> the domains would preclude many of our wrestling matches, as in...
> "We shouldn't be arguing about this... didn't you read the
> taxonomy?" I'm a big fan of such trees so I'll be the first to
> congratulate you upon success.

I think we discuss a lot of methods and tools. I try in my own work
to promote tool sets. I think processes are one off strategies at
their best. No one tool that we discuss here is best for the entire
range of applications this audience utilizes. For example, take a
person that lives in the world of client/server software that the
user learns over a few months and uses 7 hours a day - to be
comparing techniques and methods with say, a person developing online
shopping tools might be more revealing and productive if those
orientations were known upfront. Both the participants and those
monitoring the discussion might better benefit with this as a
reference. I know that there are a lot of students and young
professional that do not have sufficient experience to put the
"wrestling match" in perspective.

The greatest thing we might someday say about this forum is that it
helped to educate us, broaden our own understanding and move the
broad practice forward.

> www.jackBellis.com
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Schraad" <mschraad at mac.com>
>
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> After reading and posting here for a while, I believe that a great
>> deal of our unresolved disagreements are caused by the various types
>> of projects we work on.
>

14 Jan 2007 - 9:28am
ldebett
2004

Mark,

Since you blew out the "Web" category into a variety of flavors, I'd propose
the same is done for physical product development. I, personally, work in
the automotive space, but there are things like:

medical systems
medical devices
military systems
military devices
consumer electronics/devices
automotive systems
vertical market systems/products (e.g. for construction industry, for
printing industry, etc.)
kiosks
<your entry here>

and these include a close integration with an Industrial Design team.

~Lisa

On 1/13/07, Mark Schraad <mschraad at mac.com> wrote:

>
> Project types:
>
> Internal organizational application - long learning curve - frequent use
> Internal organizational application - client server application
> Client server application - broad distribution (in a box)
> Single use application - broad distribution (in a box)
> Utility software
> Add-on software (plug ins and such)
> Widgets (as called in Mac OSX)
> Widgets (as in component modules for assembling into full applications)
>
> Corporate web sites (online brochures)
> Web / ecommerce
> Web / information resource
> Web / intranet
> Web / extranet
> Web / portal
> Web / blog
> Web / wiki
> Web / application (2.0 ??? - I know there is still not full agreement
> on what this means)
>
> Small screen application (palm, phone, gps, etc.)
>
> Specialized aps for proprietary hardware (the UPS tablet for example)
>

Syndicate content Get the feed