Designing vs. Architecting

English teachers AND the NYTimes Book Review shudder in HORROR at the idea
of "architecting" as a verb (or in this case, a gerund, a verbal).

E-VILE!

We also find the word "gift" used as a verb perfectly revolting as well.
There is a perfectly good verb, "to give"-- and the idea of some marketer
"gifting" you with something is beyond absurd.

Registered Complaint #475.

Chris

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com> wrote:

> So Seth Godin has a new blog post <http://tinyurl.com/6rqluo> concerning
> the
> semantics of designing. vs. architecting which is rather interesting.
>
> Here is what he says --
> Is architect a verb?
> "I confess. I like using it that way.
>
> I think architecting something is different from designing it. I hope you
> can forgive me but I think it's a more precise way to express this idea.
>
> Design carries a lot of baggage related to aesthetics. We say something is
> well-designed if it looks good. There are great designs that don't look
> good, certainly, but it's really easy to get caught up in a bauhaus, white
> space, font-driven, Ideo-envy way of thinking about design.
>
> So I reserve "architect" to describe the intentional arrangement of design
> elements to get a certain result.
>
> You can architect a computer server set up to make it more efficient. You
> can architect a train station to get more people per minute through the
> turnstiles.
>
> More interesting, you can architect a business model or a pricing structure
> to make it far more effective at generating the behavior you're looking
> for.
> Most broken websites aren't broken because they violate common laws of good
> design. They're broken because their architecture is all wrong. There's no
> strategy in place.
>
> Stew Leonard's, which used to be my favorite supermarket example, is
> architected to extract large amounts of money from customers. One example:
> there's only one route through the store. You start at the beginning and
> work your way to the end. No one goes there to buy a half-gallon of milk.
> And he's not going to win any design competitions either...
>
> Or consider the architecture of the pricing at
> 37signals<http://www.37signals.com/>or the architecture of Hotmail's
> viral marketing campaign years ago.
>
> Architecture, for me anyway, involves intention, game theory, systems
> thinking and relentless testing and improvement. Fine with me if you want
> to
> call it design, just don't forget to do it."
>
>
> --
> ~ will
>
> "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> and what you innovate are design problems"
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Will Evans | User Experience Architect
> tel +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
> twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

Ok, not one to normally chime in on things that can get semi-controversial,
but...

Whether we get down to the "correctness" of using nouns as verbs, etc., I
really don't think that matters as much as the point of what Seth is
saying. I think this is actually a great approach to understanding this
discipline, at least what I do. Every time I tell someone I'm a designer
the first thing they think of is the visual design. Sure, I may do a little
visual design, but really what I do is architect more efficient and friendly
systems, products, sites. It doesn't get much simpler than this.

Just my $.02.

David

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 6:17 AM, Will Evans <will at semanticfoundry.com> wrote:

> So Seth Godin has a new blog post <http://tinyurl.com/6rqluo> concerning
> the
> semantics of designing. vs. architecting which is rather interesting.
>
> Here is what he says --
> Is architect a verb?
> "I confess. I like using it that way.
>
> I think architecting something is different from designing it. I hope you
> can forgive me but I think it's a more precise way to express this idea.
>
> Design carries a lot of baggage related to aesthetics. We say something is
> well-designed if it looks good. There are great designs that don't look
> good, certainly, but it's really easy to get caught up in a bauhaus, white
> space, font-driven, Ideo-envy way of thinking about design.
>
> So I reserve "architect" to describe the intentional arrangement of design
> elements to get a certain result.
>
> You can architect a computer server set up to make it more efficient. You
> can architect a train station to get more people per minute through the
> turnstiles.
>
> More interesting, you can architect a business model or a pricing structure
> to make it far more effective at generating the behavior you're looking
> for.
> Most broken websites aren't broken because they violate common laws of good
> design. They're broken because their architecture is all wrong. There's no
> strategy in place.
>
> Stew Leonard's, which used to be my favorite supermarket example, is
> architected to extract large amounts of money from customers. One example:
> there's only one route through the store. You start at the beginning and
> work your way to the end. No one goes there to buy a half-gallon of milk.
> And he's not going to win any design competitions either...
>
> Or consider the architecture of the pricing at
> 37signals<http://www.37signals.com/>or the architecture of Hotmail's
> viral marketing campaign years ago.
>
> Architecture, for me anyway, involves intention, game theory, systems
> thinking and relentless testing and improvement. Fine with me if you want
> to
> call it design, just don't forget to do it."
>
>
> --
> ~ will
>
> "Where you innovate, how you innovate,
> and what you innovate are design problems"
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Will Evans | User Experience Architect
> tel +1.617.281.1281 | will at semanticfoundry.com
> twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
>

--
"Art provokes thinking, design solves problems"

w: http://www.davidshaw.info

Here's a good quote for this problem:

Instead of using words which already have common uses, we should dig up
archaic words which might or might not have related meaning and just use
those, since no one knows what they mean anyway and it makes you sound
erudite to use them.

- Robert "r0ml" Lefkowitz

So, we're all looking for a word that would describe the act of creating
rules, environments and interactions to facilitate certain kinds of behavior
while impeding others, all within the boundaries of technology, money, law
and reputation. Or something like that.

There are many problems with "architecting":

• It reminds me of "strategizing", a fluffy term used by building-making
architects to describe how they take an insight or core idea and put that
into their building

• It means different things to different people

• It's not, as noted, a real verb

• It's not descriptive of anything much, and yet attempts to describe many
different activities

Now, there's nothing wrong with the idea of the master builder, but when the
only thing it really says is that you're doing something big and therefore
of great importance, rather than describing what takes place:

• "She architected the peace treaty" → so complex an act that it defies
simple description, but tells the receiver that it's big

• "We will re-architect the API for so that we could …" → we had to rewrite
an enormous amount of code, andt tells the receiver that it's big

• "I'm architecting a new type of social software for use in organizations"
→ a large venture that requires a team, consisting of a near infinite
number of small, easy to describe tasks, but tells the listener that it's
big

"Architecting" just means "it's big". Let's find a better way to describe
this concept.

- Fredrik

On Aug 7, 2008, at 8:44 AM, dave malouf wrote:

> Wow! it's 2003 all over again. Tog's original post that inspired
> this organization called on us to be "architects". our entire first
> 6 months of discussions on this list was about why we are designers
> and not architects. ;-)
>
> I refuse to repeat 6 months of ideas that I feel haven't changed and
> I think Seth's look at this is as a non-designer looking in and
> doesn't really understand that there is a long and important legacy
> connecting our work to design and not to architecture, a term which
> actually has been coopted adn ruined by engineering and other
> technologist, who have taken a sub-discipline of design and have
> created a bastardization to help make themselves feel more
> self-important with actually adding little or no further value.
>
> Now I understand that the people see design as "look & feel", but
> it is a worthy and important goal for us to evangelize a much more
> accurate and broader and historical vision of design as being so much
> more.

Just a thought:

Are those first 6 months of ideas documented anywhere so those who are
new to the field can have the benefit of the thinking behind it?

Otherwise we're doomed to revisit this over and over and over and over
and over....

Jared

Dave wrote:
> Jeff, is there any way for us to get those early conversations
> BACK into the database.

Sure. It'd probably take a little elbow grease but it's possible. I
wasn't on the list back then so I'm not sure how many messages
we're talking about, but if you're willing to forward the messages
to an ixda address we can get them back onto the website.

// jeff

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=31882

Yes, "design" has a lot of baggage related to aesthetics. But I don't see
why Godin thinks "architecture" is any better -- among many people (such
as our friend Mr Malouf), it carries ample unintended meaning. The IA
community has struggled with this albatross for quite a while.

What I find helpful in Godin's point is that it's sometimes helpful to use
words with a different nuance of meaning in order to remind us (or
clients?) of what we're *really* doing in some point of design. It can
help re-orient or re-frame the effort, in a given context.

I blogged about this just the other day, in fact -- I was thinking about
how the word "inhabit" gives a different depth to what users do in a
digital space, as opposed to "use" or "experience." But "use" and
"experience" are still excellent words nearly all the time.

Maybe the point is that we use whatever language (just like we use
whatever tool) is best, in the moment, for getting the work right?

(btw my blog post was here:
http://www.inkblurt.com/2008/08/05/words-we-use-for-what-we-make/)

---
Andrew Hinton

On Aug 7, 2008, at 7:25 AM, Christine Boese wrote:

> English teachers AND the NYTimes Book Review shudder in HORROR at
> the idea
> of "architecting" as a verb (or in this case, a gerund, a verbal).

I want to know who decided that a "request" isn't good enough, now you
have to make an "ask". ("The ask on this is that we change the font
size to sans serif.")

Every time I hear that, I think the person makes an "ask" of himself.

-- Jim