Dan Klyn has been thinking about how language, structure, and meaning might make digital spaces “good” for over twenty years. What distinguishes Dan from a lot of other thinkers is that he’s comfortable with the fact that figuring out the answer to that question isn’t always simple, and the answer isn’t always a straight line. This has made him one of the most creative and interesting people working in Information Architecture today.
Dan thinks these ideas are best understood through discussion and collaboration, so he created the IA Staycation, a workshop that includes both lectures and direct conversation with both Dan and Richard Saul Wurman.
The workshop is unusual, in that it isn’t a simple “skill builder”, but instead brings us around to this deeper question Dan always asks: What is good? How would we know? How do we make that concept something we can use?
TUG had its first run of the Staycation in August and we wanted to ask Dan what his thoughts were on the new workshop.
First, why should you take this workshop?
To learn a conceptual framework for creating real digital places. There is no shortage of IA method, but method alone isn't going to get us to where we need to be, which is the ability to make things be good, to help people understand. This class provides a framework for doing that, providing concepts, methods, and models that are clear and actionable.
Most people think of IA as representations of information in a digital place, but we think it’s far more than that. The final representation is the REALIZATION of information architecture. If you don’t have IA before you build those representations, they won’t be good. There is so much pressure to use User Experience and Information Architecture as a band aid late in a development effort, but most of the real damage to a user experience is done almost at the beginning.
Well maybe we should take a step back then. What’s your definition of information architecture, and what is it for?
Basically IA is everything that people do with language to understand things. So when we say language, those are visual languages, those are written languages, and also non-written systems of language.
In terms of what IA is for, it’s for just that: it's structures for understanding.
It sounds pretty theoretical! Would I still get something out of that class that I could immediately use?
Absolutely! We are very skeptical of theory that doesn’t turn into useful action. People who complete this week of the staycation will know what the information architecture of anything is, and will have three ways to think about how it could be better.
You can think of the class having you three major sections from which you can draw value.
First, we teach this framework of ontology, topology, and choreography. Ontology covers the idea of what things Mean, or “suchness”. Topology is the placement of that meaning in space, or “situatedness”, and Choreography covers rules for belonging, rules for interaction.
Each of the three morning sessions delivers both the concept and teaches the modeling and diagramming technique to help teach the concepts.
The second section is a very powerful methodology for eliciting alignment and prioritization from stakeholders called Intention Modeling. If TUG were to have a set of crown jewels, truly precious things it’s developed in the nine years in existence, at its center would be this stakeholder alignment process.
The third tool kit comes from in-person conversations, where attendees get to talk collaboratively with me and two other peers about the IA challenges in their organizations. They can then think about and play with the ideas in a more collaborative context.
Put another way, we need a way to talk about IA intentionally. This workshop starts you on that road.
Who do you think this workshop is for?
It's for anyone who is on these multidisciplinary product teams that create digital products. Some of the practitioner level folks working on these could be far more powerful in the practice if they could hit their problems from the perspective of information architecture.
There are some really expert-level nuggets in the workshop. But as a guideline I would say the more depth of practical experience you have in UX or IA practice, the more you should be looking at our Modeling for Clarity workshop.
Can you describe the rhythm of the course?
Our belief is that these workshops can be enjoyed and completed and fit into a full time job, caregiving, being with families, and all of that. So, an hour-long session Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at noon EST that teaches the Ontology-Topology-Choreography framework, and an afternoon session devoted to teaching the attendees our stakeholder alignment process of intention modeling.
There are two lunch and learn sessions on Tuesday and Thursday as well, where attendees will be able to ask questions of Richard Saul Wurman, who is sometimes called the father of Information Architecture. Tuesday is the “ask RSW anything” day and Thursday is a book club style discussion about his book “Understanding Understanding”.
So eight hours of class time, then Tuesday and Thursdays are set aside for the three-on-one appointments, which are largely optional but in my opinion are the best thing about the class.
And that’s it. There are certainly ways you can go deeper, but to whatever degree you have the time or inclination for.
Do you expect people to have information architecture experience before starting the workshop?
Not formally! But IA is everywhere. Human beings have plenty of experiences as architects of information, both interpreting and using. If you’ve ever listed things, planned a report to be easy to read and use, or tried to intentionally arrange stuff in a room, you’ve applied information architecture. All we ask is that you come ready to be thoughtful.
What was the most subversive thing about the class?
How physical it is. I wish it could be even more so. We’re in theory talking about designing stuff for computer interfaces, but if I could I’d teach it in a classroom with hand-held slate boards, the only illumination being natural light through the building’s windows. We arrange things, literally ARRANGE them. I encourage pencil and paper, and have almost no digital exercises.
It's the getting out of the idea that we are solutioning with technology. There's enough technology. I want to get back to the embodied and physical world, because ultimately that’s what we’re designing for.
What went better than you thought it would?
The three-on-one sessions. The whole idea came from Rob Bell. Rob makes his living in part by coaching creatives, and what he found in his coaching practice is that one-on-ones can be uncomfortable and expensive, but with a three-on-one, the being exposed to two other people's problem and hearing the teacher interact them, can be more valuable than the own interaction with your problem. Still we’d never tried it before, but that first cohort of staycationers got much more than we’d hoped from it.