SIGIA-L Mail Archives: Re: understanding metadata , was Re: SIG
Re: understanding metadata , was Re: SIGIA-L: future directions for IA
From: Chris Chandler (chrischandler67_at_earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Aug 30 2001 - 00:40:02 EDT
> Louis Rosenfeld wrote:
>
> > But isn't that what IA is about: architecting to
connect users to
> > meaning?
Ziya Oz wrote:
> No way!
>
> That presupposes that you (as the IA) know what
constitutes "meaning" for
> an arbitrary user.
No it doesn't. For one thing, to connect up to a point Peter
made earlier, an "arbitrary" user would be fairly low down
on my list of "personas" for a particular web
site/information service. But even in the case of designing
for information/resource discovery for arbitrary users (say
a public library system) there are plenty of proper
presuppositions about meaning that can and should be made
explicit. An Author index "means" that someone was the
author of a work, whatever other "meanings" the arbitrary
user may constitute for herself.
> Why not just take the next logical step and *tell* them
> what to think?
That is not the next logical step at all, but it is quite
inflamatory rhetoric on your part.
> As a user, the last thing I want is an IA giving "meaning"
> to my own experience. Just as the best cinematographers
provide the visual
> bearings for me to discover the film by myself without
intruding, give me
> tools, point and get out of the way, please.
Why is an IA like the cinematographer, and not the editor,
or the director or the writer? And by the way, I can think
of countless examples of cinematographers, editors, writers
and directors who provide more than "visual bearings." (and
I'm quite curious now about your movie viewing habits) But,
more importantly, what exactly do you mean by "tools" and
"point"? And how would an IA create a tool or "point"
without meaning? Curioser and curiouser.
--
Chris Chandler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:48 EST
|
