September 25th, 2006

Writing as IT

by Joshua Porter  |   13 Comments  |  shortlink: http://bokardo.com/p/477

Ok, so this is something completely different. Instead of the usual joshness, I’ve invited my friend Bill (and my former professor at RPI) to guest post because he’s writing a really cool book and wants to get feedback on some early parts of it. Before I show you the content, however, let me set the stage a bit…

Last week, in part 4 of my discussion with Luke Wroblewski, the topic of writing and design came up. I compared writing to design, because I think there are striking similarities between the two: they each involve the selection and organization of content for effective communication of ideas. I was discussing this later with Bill, and he shared with me an even more extreme idea. Now, if there’s one thing that I know about Bill, it’s that there’s a lot more to his writing than can be gotten in an initial skimming. He’ll send me something, I’ll read it, and then weeks later I’ll realize how it got into my psyche…I’ve assimilated the thoughts almost without knowing it. So, with that, here’s a brief overview of the book he’s working on. And by the way, solid, enlightening feedback is mandatory… :)

— the following is a book excerpt by Bill Hart-Davidson —

Writing as IT

Writing is information technology. This deceptively simple statement serves as both the central claim of and motivation for a book I am working on that is an attempt to demonstrate a kind of inquiry for creating useful and usable information systems grounded in and based upon the study of writing. And I begin with the assumption that the connection between studying writing and creating useful and usable information systems is quite tenuous for most folks who would call themselves “writing specialists” of one sort or another as well as those who have a stake in the design of information systems .

So where was I? Oh yes, Writing is IT. For some readers, the statement is counterintuitive. These readers might say “no, information technology is mathematics.” And I would not immediately disagree. Digital technologies, in particular, are fundamentally mathematical in that the information is ultimately represented using numbers and the powerful manipulations of information we can perform in digital environments all depend on computation . But for most users of information technology, the digital, computational nature of the information they work with is all but invisible in the day-to-day tasks they do. And, more importantly, in the goals, hopes, and even the pragmatic activities and tasks that users engage information technology to accomplish, computation is conspicuously absent, even actively avoided. Through information technology, computation provides a medium for augmenting our ability to create and use information (Dourish, 2001). Writing, it turns out, does this too.

But just as computing is not what people want to do or think of themselves as doing with their computers, neither is writing. In fact, that writing is going on at all where information technologies are concerned is likely to be all but invisible to most users. This, then, is the reason I want to assert that “Writing is IT”, the thing that information systems attempt to leverage the power of in order to be valuable to users. To put it another way, writing makes information systems work – the basic technique of making a mark on a surface using a systematic encoding scheme is central to computing architectures, to network architectures, and on a day-to-day use level, to most of the work that folks do in the context of information systems. Unlike computation, writing rises to the very top of our consciousness as users of information technology quite often, even if it quickly goes away once our task is done. What is it we do at our computers and over our networks? We write. And/or we do things that invoke our computers, our hardware, and our applications to write.

A Disciplinary View of Writing…

Putting aside for a moment the fact that claiming “disciplinary” views of writing exist at all is, in my own field, controversial, here is a very simple rendering of the difference between a disciplinary view of writing and a more conventional view, held by someone who doesn’t define their work in life as the study of writing . Traditional views of writing assume writers and readers are engaged in a special kind of conversation, one where the text stands in for one or more absent participants. My view of writing, on the other hand, assumes that writing is a medium, and that people are more often users of texts (as opposed to participants in a conversation); writing is not the focus of the action, but a powerful context for action.

In my book, I am trying to frame a view of writing that suggests that those of us who are “writing geeks” and those of us who are “computer geeks” have something in common. Consider the folks behind Google. Their search engine can provide users with fantastic search results precisely because of a relevance algorithm that focuses on “writing” as a social phenomenon, namely how many people make links between a concept, a keyword, or a name. Google folks get my disciplinary view of writing. And a lot of other people do too. Trouble is, they don’t call it writing or recognize it to be an act thereof. Thus is that nature of disciplinary views of all sorts. What non-physicists call “matter” and what physicists call matter tend to be different things, especially when the conversation is one physicist talking to another one.

This view of writing is, potentially, dangerous when we throw in our assumptions about what it means to be “literate.” Who can read and write? The view of writing described above calls for us to recognize “literacy” not as an ability to communicate well in writing, but rather as a kind of record of concrete “events” in the lived experience of people communicating. Such a view even suggests a theoretical and ethical stance for researchers from a variety of disciplines who would contribute to the development of information systems: inquiry dedicated to the proposition that all literacy events are created equal. The “literate” can link? can blog? can view and edit an aggregated transaction history that they contribute to (that is, a text that they co-author) by swiping their discount card at the grocery store? Aren’t those the conditions for literacy in the information age?

Check out my latest project: Make them Care!, a book on designing great sign-up experiences. Get reminded when it's published.

Links to this Post

Comments

1.  pauric 9:13am, Tue 26th, 2006

Josh, question.. “The view of writing described above calls for us to recognize “literacy” not as an ability to communicate well in writing, but rather as a kind of record of concrete “events” in the lived experience of people communicating.”

Are you suggesting that tailoring your words to your target users (to use UI terminology) then, in short, its part of the UI design field?

If yes, I have a follow up question.

2.  Bill H-D 10:10am, Tue 26th, 2006

Hi Pauric,

(guest blogger Bill here)

I would say tailoring words is a UX question, and sometimes a UI question. Another assertion this book makes (it’s the title of a chapter, in fact) goes likes this:

Documents are Interfaces.

That is, locations where people (and sometimes people and machines) come together. In this way, documents are locations for future interaction…not only records of past action.

Does that give context for your question?

3.  pauric 12:58pm, Tue 26th, 2006

Firstly, the question was posed to Josh in response to his assertion that content is designed. That said, I have the same problem with Documents are Interfaces.

I do agree with the perspective, I disagree with the practicalities of those statements.
You said: “documents are locations for future interaction…not only records of past action”, I like this and it works on many levels. I think documents age as the readership’s experience grows past the knowledge held at that time. Interfaces age as users learn new interface paradigms or when new control technologies arrive on the scène. And, we can look back at both, A life on Walden Pond or Windows 3.1, and see a historical marker in the document or interface.

Now, forgive the rather crude metaphor… A Dylan song about politics from the 60s, a ‘document’, may have been an interface between the song/content writer and his listeners/users. And yes, we can now look back at that reference and ‘interface’ in to the views at that point in time. This does not mean Dylan was or is viewed as a political analyst. In the same way, a creative writer is not a UI/UX designer. They can be the same person as in Josh’s case, but that does not mean I’m missing a skill as a pure UI/UX head. It’s a slippery slope to saying Burt Bacharach was a poor songwriter because he was a little light on meaningful content.

I would say Documents are -like- Interfaces, creating content is -like- designing it, a creative writer is -like- a UI designer. A lot of the processes are similar, that does not mean they are the same thing or can be completed by the same person in our context.

I’ll make an assumption that Josh’s readership is familiar with UI/UX design, web development etc. Why then, based on both your writings, is he using terminology that will confuse the users of his Interface Content/Document? State the assumption at the start or come up with a new name but, josh, your ‘interface’ is broken if you start repurposing the users language.

4.  Bill H-D 10:30am, Wed 27th, 2006

A broader view of “documents” might help here. Your examples are mostly creative works. These are texts as art.

I am thinking more about texts that do work in the world. So…airline safety cards in the seatback pocket, tax forms, welcome brochures by the convention and visitor’s bureau, blog posts…

And as for Josh’s choice of terms, I think he was trying to build a little suspense before the jump. That is, he “designed” the post to try and get folks to click through to read the whole thing. (an anticipation of interaction, and an attempt to manipulate it). Your comment is a critique of that design choice, yes? Essentially you are saying that rather than tantalize readers, he might have confused them instead.

5.  Pauric 12:45pm, Wed 27th, 2006

In your opionion, can you interface (functionally) with expressed/creative content?

6.  Bill H-D 1:50pm, Wed 27th, 2006

Sure.

What I like to think of here are instances of “use” that generally fall outside the assumed interaction known as sustained, silent reading. These tend to be things that folks other than the “author” are designing for, if they are considered at all. They can also be quite important to users.

Example: buying a paperback novel. What affordances are designed into the document to facilitate this? Review blurbs on the cover and in the front matter, “also by this author” lists, author photos…

All of these things are likely to accompany the expressive text that is the “content.” But they serve an important mediational role during the task of making a purchase decision.

Now…that’s kind of a slippery answer to your question. So let me offer a more direct one. Are there also times when the writer’s own design choices within “the content” are meant to guide interaction? Absolutely…Mark Danielewski’s experimental fiction (see House of Leaves) is a striking example. David Foster Wallace’s work Infinite Jest is too. Both use the convention of footnotes to facilitate layered storytelling in an otherwise linear medium – the print novel.

Are there things that best-selling novelists do to design their content to aid users in making a buy decision? Sure. Make the first line memorable…leave folks wondering what happens next. That’s a design choice, I’d say, meant to encourage “page turning.”

7.  Pauric 2:29pm, Wed 27th, 2006

hmmmm… I think you’re making a basic assumption that consumption is a user goal. I do not think it is or should be considered in design.

An author needs to sell his book, he may use text to sway the user to meet his goals. Therefore I view the action of payment as a seller’s goal.

And on this point, ‘marketing’ is functional blurb accompanying the expressive text. ‘Also by this author’ & ‘Best seller list’ is functional text in my view. The user does use functional text to allocate his attention, which is very similar to making a buying decision but outside the control of the seller, i.e. reading Amazon reviews to make a purchase on eBay.

I’m not familiar with the two authors you cited, would this not be an example of interacting with art, not so much functional interaction?

However, I do appreciate what you are saying so let me be a bit more specific, and for my own benefit lets put purchasing examples aside as I do not deal with consumption in my designs.

There are two components to bokardo.com. The (traditional) interface and the creative content contained within. Arguments have been put forward that the creative content has been designed. It is a given that something ‘designed’ can be interacted with at a functional level. With a view on Josh’s writings can you give me an example of expressive content that is functionally interacted with?

8.  Pauric 3:52pm, Wed 27th, 2006

You know what Bill, I think this is down to semantics and I should just let it go. I fully appreciate what you are both saying when you state content is designed and documents are interfaces.

Personally I feel we should be cautious about generalising terms to make a point. I’m a stickler for detail and definition. I write a lot of specifications for engineers who do not hold English as their first language, I’m sure you appreciate how the vaguarities of a few keywords can alter the direction of a design.

I would to thank you both for a very thought provoking dialogue, its certainly expanded my view of what it means to create a design.

9.  Glenn of Philippines 2:40am, Wed 4th, 2006

Hi Bill, very interesting topic. I love the way you write in your blog.. i think you are both good in writing and programming. good luck :)

10.  Jamie Stephens 9:57am, Mon 9th, 2006

Bill,

Great Discussion on writing as information technology. I think in this world of computers and digital mediums it is easy to forget the importance of the role of writing as one of the early communication/information technologies.

For what it’s worth, you might also consider an even older (the original, in fact) communication technology, oral tradition. Just like the literacay that needs to be developed to read an inscription or navigate the interweb, there is a literacy among the oral cultures in which the primary means of communication is oral.

John Miles Foley explores the intersection of oral tradition and the Internet on his blog: Oral Tradition and the Internet.

Also, as part of the Center for Studies in Oral Tradition, we just launched the first installment of 20 years of content from the journal Oral Tradition.

I hope this is helpful.

Best,
Jamie

11.  Bill H-D 11:16am, Mon 9th, 2006

Thanks Jamie! I will definitely check out the blog and the Center’s journal.