Joe Natoli :: Enterprise Experience Architect



3 keys to socializing Information Architecture with a Client

A client of mine recently asked me for some advice he could share with his internal team with regard to the IA we developed for their website redesign. In thinking about this I realized that of all the things I’ve told clients over the years about how to effectively review and IA document, the tried and true method – the one that results in shared understanding and keeps the project moving – is usually the following approach:

  1. Evaluate the document on its own merit, in and of itself. Evaluate it as a stand-alone deliverable, an outline.
  2. Don’t concern yourself with how this outline manifests itself in navigation or page design. Ignore the site for the moment.
  3. Your feedback should tell us whether :
  • All information is categorized properly
  • All information is organized and grouped in a way that makes contextual sense to the user
  • All information is organized and grouped accurately in terms of what areas of content are most closely related
  • All information in secondary and tertiary tiers is prioritized properly, according to level of value to the user and value to the business.

That’s my advice – what’s yours?

  • Share/Bookmark

read more ›
Posted 02:29:12 :: Permalink :: Comments [0] :: TrackBack (0)

What Designers REALLY Do

Most people think they know what designers do….but often, they don’t. Consider these responses heard by many of us as you’ve just revealed yourself as a designer:

“Ohhhh, you pick the colors for web sites.”

“Ohhhh, you do graphic arts.”

Uh, no.

Personally, I’m fond of saying if it didn’t GROW there, somebody designed it.

Regardless, I stumbled across a pretty interesting description of what exactly people like me (and maybe you) do all day. Below are the core expertises of Design according to Chris Conley, Professor and Director, Product Design Graduate Program, Institute of Design, Chicago:

1. The ability to understand the context or circumstances of a design problem and frame them in an insightful way
2. The ability to work at a level of abstraction appropriate to the situation at hand
3. The ability to model and visualize solutions even with imperfect information
4. An approach to problem solving that involves the simultaneous creation and evaluation of multiple alternatives
5. The ability to add or maintain value as pieces are integrated into a whole
6. The ability to establish purposeful relationships among elements of a solution and between the solution and its context
7. The ability to use form to embody ideas and to communicate their value

How do YOU define what designers do?

  • Share/Bookmark

read more ›
Posted 02:24:12 :: Permalink :: Comments [0] :: TrackBack (0)

What separates GREAT designers from good ones?

I’ve been thinking a lot about what separates great designers from their merely competent brethren. And my pal Google led me to the following, courtesy of the AIGA. Everything here is tried and true, folks – and I don’t see these requirements changing anytime soon. Further proof that great design is about a hell of a lot more than visual talent. Enjoy.

  1. Ability to create and develop visual response to communication problems, including understanding of hierarchy, typography, aesthetics, composition and construction of meaningful images
  2. Ability to solve communication problems including identifying the problem, researching, analysis, solution generating, prototyping, user testing and outcome evaluation
  3. Broad understanding of issues related to the cognitive, social, cultural, technological and economic contexts for design
  4. Ability to respond to audience contexts recognizing physical, cognitive, cultural and social human factors that shape design decisions
  5. Understanding of and ability to utilize tools and technology
  6. Ability to be flexible, nimble and dynamic in practice
  7. Management and communication skills necessary to function productively in large interdisciplinary teams and “flat” organizational structures
  8. Understanding of how systems behave and aspects that contribute to sustainable products, strategies and practices
  9. Ability to construct verbal arguments for solutions that address diverse users/audiences; lifespan issues; and business/organizational operations
  10. Ability to work in a global environment with understanding of cultural preservation
  11. Ability to collaborate productively in large interdisciplinary teams
  12. Understanding of ethics in practice
  13. Understanding of nested items including cause and effect; ability to develop project evaluation criteria that account for audience and context
  • Share/Bookmark

read more ›
Posted 01:11:11 :: Permalink :: Comments [0] :: TrackBack (0)

Starbucks Logo Change – Hit or Miss?

A friend just tipped me to the Starbucks logo change below…interested in hearing reactions. Take a look:

starbucks logo change 2011

Will people still recognize this – immediately, as in a 2 second glance while driving?

Most people probably will, but I think this is a bad move for the brand. The majority of their brand equity is in that word at the top — and I think the name resonates — and has resonated — much more powerfully than the mermaid image ever did, ever does or ever will. When you have that much public mindshare generated by and linked to a single word, you better have an extremely good reason — backed by a mountain of quantitative and qualitative data — to remove it from your visual brand.

What do you think?

  • Share/Bookmark

read more ›
Posted 01:05:11 :: Permalink :: Comments [2] :: TrackBack (0)

What’s behind the tension between “the business” and IT?

I recently posted an answer to the age-old question of the great divide between IT and the business, almost to the extent of being like a Dilbert comic. Why is that, the poster asked. Here’s what I wrote. Check it out and let me know what YOU think the issue is.

To me, the core issue is one of company culture, and the symptoms stem from the organization and hierarchy of the company itself, the org chart. Even after all we’ve learned about the makeup of successful companies having the flexibility and adaptability to thrive in an era of networked, speed-of-light change, businesses still embrace old, outdated models that in my mind encourage this kind of divisiveness.

Whether it’s business vs. IT or marketing vs. operations or any other scenario, it’s because opposing sides are in a predefined position on the playing field, already set up to treat what they do as a sacred cow and defend it to the death — thinking that the other cannot possibly grasp the complexity of their world. The following joke, to me, is sadly illustrative:

A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts: “Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?”

The man below says: “yes you’re in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field.”

“You must work in Information Technology” says the balloonist.

“I do” replies the man. “How did you know.”

“Well” says the balloonist, “everything you have told me is technically correct, but it’s no use to anyone.”

The man below says “you must work in business.”

“I do” replies the balloonist, “but how did you know?”

“Well”, says the man, “you don’t know where you are, or where you’re going, but you expect me to be able to help. You’re in the same position you were before we met, but now it’s my fault.”

This is an old stereotype, but the organizational models most companies embrace encourage the division. How? Projects are usually tagged as either a “business” project or an “IT” project, and that’s a mistake to begin with. The “or” should be replaced with an “and”. When companies set up this kind of us vs. them environment where one side is in a position to overrule the other, the results will never serve either side properly.

The typical line of thinking in business seems to be that those with the money make the rules. I think that should be changed to “those with the most knowledge and experience across all related subject areas make the rules.” And I will bet you my paycheck that that team is comprised of people across BOTH the business and IT disciplines.

Organizational change is damn hard and it takes time. Progress comes in inches. But these walls must be torn down. Any company that does not learn to collaborate across these bullshit boundaries will eventually go the way of the dinosaur. If you’re paying attention you’ll see the evidence.

Do what you’ve always done and you’ll get what you’ve always gotten. It isn’t any more difficult than that.

  • Share/Bookmark

read more ›
Posted 07:21:10 :: Permalink :: Comments [0] :: TrackBack (0)