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 "Will Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/07/2008 09:17 AM To "IXDA list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc Subject [IxDA Discuss] Designing vs. Architecting 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 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] twitter: https://twitter.com/semanticwill --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT. The information contained in this e-mail message, including attachments, is the confidential information of, and/or is the property of, Vanguard. The information is intended for use solely by the individual or entity named in the message. If you are not an intended recipient or you received this in error, then any review, printing, copying, or distribution of any such information is prohibited, and please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail from your system. ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
