David Crow: There is no such thing as information design
Jakub
· 5 years ago
I have a feeling Mr. Raskin might be wrong at saying that information cannot be designed. First of all, Raskin admits that we ought to "adapt our vocabulary to reflect our increasing knowledge" however he himself sticks to a definition of information which is half a century old. Second, we should remember that there is a problem with Shanon's definition. Shanon's theory does not account for the difference between meaningful and meaningless information. All it deals with is the quantification of information.
Enter Wurman, and Shedroff with a dictionary update. In the first edition of Information Anxiety, Wurman separates information into the two terms: data and information. Data is formless, abstract, and meaningless. Information has form, is real, and is meaningful. Wurman writes: "[data] must be imbued with form and applied to become meaningful information".
Shedroff further elaborates on the idea of a continuum of understanding in his Unified Field Theory of Design, where information is also distinguished from data, yet closely tied to meaning: http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/.
It seems what Raskin is really referring to in his article is "data". In that case, yes, abstract and formless data cannot be designed. Information design is here to stay though ...
David Crow
· 5 years ago
Shannon's theory actually allows for the concept of "information design". A communication system contains: 1) an information source; 2) a transmitter; 3) a channel; 4) the receiver; & 5) the destination. The theory then allows us to look at the both the message (signal) and the noise in a system.
The "information design" then becomes understanding the possible sources of "noise" and building your message to sustain.
I think you are right, Raskin is referring to "data" and not information. Data is what is transferred, it is the content of the message that is most important. Essentially, I can design a message that is easier to transmit and compress, or richer to ensure that given the sources of noise it is easier to understand. This is less of an issue in a bandwidth rich medium like vision. Where it is of greater concern is a bandwidth constrained medium like hearing where signals are processed (mostly) serially.
Jakub is correct, I can design the information, i.e., the message, but what is much harder is to guarrantee that it will be received and interpretted correctly.
All Comments
I have a feeling Mr. Raskin might be wrong at saying that information cannot be designed. First of all, Raskin admits that we ought to "adapt our vocabulary to reflect our increasing knowledge" however he himself sticks to a definition of information which is half a century old. Second, we should remember that there is a problem with Shanon's definition. Shanon's theory does not account for the difference between meaningful and meaningless information. All it deals with is the quantification of information.
Enter Wurman, and Shedroff with a dictionary update. In the first edition of Information Anxiety, Wurman separates information into the two terms: data and information. Data is formless, abstract, and meaningless. Information has form, is real, and is meaningful. Wurman writes: "[data] must be imbued with form and applied to become meaningful information".
Shedroff further elaborates on the idea of a continuum of understanding in his Unified Field Theory of Design, where information is also distinguished from data, yet closely tied to meaning: http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/.
It seems what Raskin is really referring to in his article is "data". In that case, yes, abstract and formless data cannot be designed. Information design is here to stay though ...
Shannon's theory actually allows for the concept of "information design". A communication system contains: 1) an information source; 2) a transmitter; 3) a channel; 4) the receiver; & 5) the destination. The theory then allows us to look at the both the message (signal) and the noise in a system.
The "information design" then becomes understanding the possible sources of "noise" and building your message to sustain.
I think you are right, Raskin is referring to "data" and not information. Data is what is transferred, it is the content of the message that is most important. Essentially, I can design a message that is easier to transmit and compress, or richer to ensure that given the sources of noise it is easier to understand. This is less of an issue in a bandwidth rich medium like vision. Where it is of greater concern is a bandwidth constrained medium like hearing where signals are processed (mostly) serially.
Jakub is correct, I can design the information, i.e., the message, but what is much harder is to guarrantee that it will be received and interpretted correctly.