



















































<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: There is no such thing as information design</title>
	<atom:link href="http://davidcrow.ca/article/624/there-is-no-such-thing-as-information-design/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://davidcrow.ca/article/624/there-is-no-such-thing-as-information-design</link>
	<description>Helping companies with marketing, product strategy, user experience design, and technology development.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:01:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Crow</title>
		<link>http://davidcrow.ca/article/624/there-is-no-such-thing-as-information-design/comment-page-1#comment-92</link>
		<dc:creator>David Crow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.davidcrow.ca/?p=157#comment-92</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Shannon&#039;s theory actually allows for the concept of &quot;information design&quot;. A communication system contains: 1) an information source; 2) a transmitter; 3) a channel; 4) the receiver; &amp; 5) the destination. The theory then allows us to look at the both the message (signal) and the noise in a system. 

The &quot;information design&quot; then becomes understanding the possible sources of &quot;noise&quot; and building your message to sustain.

I think you are right, Raskin is referring to &quot;data&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. 

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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shannon&#8217;s theory actually allows for the concept of &quot;information design&quot;. A communication system contains: 1) an information source; 2) a transmitter; 3) a channel; 4) the receiver; &amp; 5) the destination. The theory then allows us to look at the both the message (signal) and the noise in a system. </p>
<p>The &quot;information design&quot; then becomes understanding the possible sources of &quot;noise&quot; and building your message to sustain.</p>
<p>I think you are right, Raskin is referring to &quot;data&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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jakub</title>
		<link>http://davidcrow.ca/article/624/there-is-no-such-thing-as-information-design/comment-page-1#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>Jakub</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2004 04:31:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.davidcrow.ca/?p=157#comment-91</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&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 &quot;adapt our vocabulary to reflect our increasing knowledge&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&#039;s definition. Shanon&#039;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: &quot;[data] must be imbued with form and applied to become meaningful information&quot;. 

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 &quot;data&quot;. In that case, yes, abstract and formless data cannot be designed. Information design is here to stay though ...&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 &#8220;adapt our vocabulary to reflect our increasing knowledge&#8221; 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&#8217;s definition. Shanon&#8217;s theory does not account for the difference between meaningful and meaningless information. All it deals with is the quantification of information.</p>
<p>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: &#8220;[data] must be imbued with form and applied to become meaningful information&#8221;. </p>
<p>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: <a href="http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/</a>. </p>
<p>It seems what Raskin is really referring to in his article is &#8220;data&#8221;. In that case, yes, abstract and formless data cannot be designed. Information design is here to stay though &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jakub</title>
		<link>http://davidcrow.ca/article/624/there-is-no-such-thing-as-information-design/comment-page-1#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator>Jakub</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2004 04:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.davidcrow.ca/?p=157#comment-90</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&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 &quot;adapt our vocabulary to reflect our increasing knowledge&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&#039;s definition. Shanon&#039;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: &quot;[data] must be imbued with form and applied to become meaningful information&quot;. 

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 &quot;data&quot;. In that case, yes, abstract and formless data cannot be designed. Information design is here to stay though ...
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 &#8220;adapt our vocabulary to reflect our increasing knowledge&#8221; 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&#8217;s definition. Shanon&#8217;s theory does not account for the difference between meaningful and meaningless information. All it deals with is the quantification of information.</p>
<p>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: &#8220;[data] must be imbued with form and applied to become meaningful information&#8221;. </p>
<p>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: <a href="http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/" rel="nofollow">http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/</a>. </p>
<p>It seems what Raskin is really referring to in his article is &#8220;data&#8221;. In that case, yes, abstract and formless data cannot be designed. Information design is here to stay though &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
