<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>David Crow - Latest Comments in There is no such thing as information design</title><link>http://davidcrow.disqus.com/</link><description>David Crow helping startups with product strategy, marketing, user experience design, and technology development.</description><atom:link href="https://davidcrow.disqus.com/there_is_no_such_thing_as_information_design/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2004 09:46:39 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: There is no such thing as information design</title><link>http://davidcrow.ca/article/624/there-is-no-such-thing-as-information-design#comment-21175090</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Shannon&amp;amp;#039;s theory actually allows for the concept of &amp;amp;quot;information design&amp;amp;quot;. A communication system contains: 1) an information source; 2) a transmitter; 3) a channel; 4) the receiver; &amp;amp;amp; 5) the destination. The theory then allows us to look at the both the message (signal) and the noise in a system. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  The &amp;amp;quot;information design&amp;amp;quot; then becomes understanding the possible sources of &amp;amp;quot;noise&amp;amp;quot; and building your message to sustain.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  I think you are right, Raskin is referring to &amp;amp;quot;data&amp;amp;quot; 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. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  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.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">davidcrow</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2004 09:46:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: There is no such thing as information design</title><link>http://davidcrow.ca/article/624/there-is-no-such-thing-as-information-design#comment-21175091</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;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 &amp;amp;quot;adapt our vocabulary to reflect our increasing knowledge&amp;amp;quot; 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&amp;amp;#039;s definition. Shanon&amp;amp;#039;s theory does not account for the difference between meaningful and meaningless information. All it deals with is the quantification of information.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  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: &amp;amp;quot;[data] must be imbued with form and applied to become meaningful information&amp;amp;quot;. &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  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: &amp;lt;a href="&lt;a href="http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/"&gt;http://www.nathan.com/thoug...&lt;/a&gt;. " target="_blank"&amp;gt;&amp;lt;a href="&lt;a href="http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/"&gt;http://www.nathan.com/thoug...&lt;/a&gt;." target="_blank"&amp;gt;&lt;a href="http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/.&lt;/a&gt;" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/.&lt;/a&gt;"&gt;http://www.nathan.com/thoug...&lt;/a&gt; &amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  &amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br&gt;  It seems what Raskin is really referring to in his article is &amp;amp;quot;data&amp;amp;quot;. In that case, yes, abstract and formless data cannot be designed. Information design is here to stay though ...&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jakub</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2004 16:31:35 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>