 |
« | Week of Jan 11 | < | Individual Entries | > | Week of Jan 25 | » |  |
 |
 |
Of Maps and Diagrams
design, information
January 24, 2004, 11:45 PM
I'm taking a course called "Mapping and Diagramming" this semester from the Design department, taught by Karen Moyer, whom some may remember from my postings on CDF. This time, however, I'm learning about the design of (you guessed it) maps and diagrams, which Karen describes as essentially that subset of information design that deals with high-density information artifacts. I've always found maps and diagrams fascinating in and of themselves, quite apart from any information they convey, so this is a neat course to have the opportunity to take.
So far we've talked a lot about analyzing maps as information objects, and the field is more complex than you may think. Many think of maps as merely representing factual information. The design of a map doesn't seem quite so hard since the information already exists in the world; all the designer must do is record it accurately and in a reasonably aesthetic representation. But nothing could be further from the truth. All maps are selective in the information they represent, whether that information is geographical, political, or something else. Many maps outright lie with respect to certain kinds of information to more accurately or prominently display others (Karen showed us a geodesic dome of the world where all the continents were accurately sized, but the oceans were completely off; the purpose of the map was to allow comparison of the continent sizes while retaining the spherical form of the earth). Some maps may even make a political argument through the information they choose to analyze; Charles Minard's famous map of Napolean's Russian campaign is an example.
The definition of a "map" we're using is also broader than one may think; kayaking eskimos use a piece of wood carved in the shape of the coastline to navigate by. A series of photographs of the intersections of a highway is another example.
The essential goal of a well-designed map is (usually) to present a large amount of information that is intuitively understandable to its audience at a glance. Richard Saul Wurman's book Understanding is a nice collection of year 2000 statistics on the USA presented with this design goal in mind. Information design of this quality should be regularly produced by the government in a healthy democracy rather than relying on the good will of a cabal of famous designers (Wurman and his compatriots lost money on the project).
A final note: Karen mentioned a group of urban planners who had members of the community they were seeking to redesign draw maps of the areas in which they lived to find out what places were most important, dangerous, etc. to the inhabitants. An interesting user-research technique.
Email Rob:
Defining SMART Objectives
processes & methodologies
January 22, 2004, 10:18 PM
More wisdom from Matt on project management, this time on the topic of defining good objectives.
First off, Objectives need to be distinguished from Mission Statements or other expressions of general direction. When a team or organization expresses their mission, this is an important tool for maintaining a joint understanding of what the group is trying to accomplish by staying together and how every individual fits into the larger group purpose. Because the purpose of Mission Statements is to provide direction, there's not necessarily a requirement that the mission ever actually be accomplished.
Objectives are different. Objectives do need to be accomplished if a project is to be considered a success. The purpose of objectives is to provide a definition of that success and to provide it up front, so that all project team members understand what the group needs to do. Good objectives have five important properties. To remember them, PMs say that good objectives need to be SMART:
- Specific—Objectives need to describe particular actions and results in quantifiable terms. For example, let's imagine a widget factory manager who is given the very vague objective from higher up to "increase production". To make this objective more specific, she might change it to "increase widget output by 3%".
- Measurable—This means that each objective must have some sort of mechanism in place to check the extent to which it is getting achieved. If our factory manager doesn't already have something in place to count the number of widgets produced, then she'd better find something to do so.
- Achievable—The objective needs to be possible to accomplish with a reasonable time and energy investment from all team members. This may seem obvious, but there are plenty of times that impossible objectives get set, often because the manager who set them didn't know enough to realize they were impossible and didn't consult with anyone who did. Our factory manager may wish to meet with workers and their supervisors to discover whether the 3% output increase is reasonable or not before she imposes it.
- Relevant—The objective must be meaningful to all team members and it must be something they are able to influence. Presumably the factory workers under our manager are able to influence the widget output (although setting individual objectives, like 5 more widgets a day per person, might be even more relevant) but had our manager asked them to "increase profit margins" then she would have been greeted by blank stares. Relevance is, of course, determined by the people the objective is being set for. In a way, it speaks to objectives being user-centered.
- Time-bound—The objective needs a deadline, or no one's going to ever get around to accomplishing it. Our factory manager should change her objective to "increase widget production by 3% in two months" to make it conform to this property.
This article describes each property in a little more detail for the curious.
Though these properties are simple in concept, writing effective objectives is harder than it appears. Make sure you understand the purpose of each property, and don't overlook any. After all, you don't want to wind up with objectives that are SMAT or SMRT.
Email Rob:
Sleep Makes You Smarter
psychology
January 22, 2004, 02:03 PM
Mathilde found an article reporting on a study that found that adequate sleep makes you smarter and more creative (in addition to its productivity and health virtues). A quick selection:
Maquet and Ruby both say the study should be considered a warning to schools, employers and government agencies that sleep makes a huge difference in mental performance.The results "give us good reason to fully respect our periods of sleep -- especially given the current trend to recklessly curtail them," they said.
The culture here at CMU could certainly stand to learn this lesson, as could the culture in many software companies. Frequent all-nighters just don't pay off, in the short term or the long term. Some management methodologies recognize this, like eXtreme Programming. But it's always nice to have scientific confirmation.
I'm thinking of printing out that article and posting it in the space of any project teams I'm on.
Posted by Dave on January 22, 2004 at 05:44 PM
Nice to know ... especially when I have a half finished project due tomorrow. You think the prof will take this as an excuse??
Posted by Rob on January 22, 2004 at 08:51 PM
I think the idea is to get a good deal more than half of the project finished by the night before it is due... Strange concept I know, but believe it or not it works! You should totally try it sometime...
Email Rob:
Setting the Agenda
processes & methodologies
January 19, 2004, 11:16 PM
Awhile back, my friend Matt taught me how to write a good meeting agenda. It's a simple skill to learn, but highly important for running effective meetings. Agendas are often skipped by novice facilitators, which all too often leads to wandering, ineffective meetings that waste everyone's time.
There are three important components to any agenda item:
- The item description, which gives a one-line summary of what's going to happen.
- The person responsible for the item, so that it's clear who will be facilitating that part of the meeting, and thus must come prepared to do so.
- The type of the item, which is described in more detail below.
It may also help to allocate a time range for each agenda item. For formal meetings, these times are generally present and strictly adhered to. For less formal meetings, however, they can still be helpful as process checks to ensure an unimportant agenda item doesn't dominate the whole meeting, or cause it to run too far over.
The type of an agenda item is one of three options:
- Information refers to an agenda item where one member of the group is going to report to all the other members about some topic. The other members are only expected to listen and ask questions, if necessary.
- Discussion refers to an agenda item open to general discussion. All members may raise issues and voice their opinions, but no decision need be reached by the group.
- Decision, on the other hand, refers to an agenda item where the group must reach a consensus. The item is not complete until the members have agreed on one course of action over the other available alternatives.
The type is an important component, since it makes clear to all members the purpose of each agenda item, allowing the group to deal with each accordingly. An item that must conclude with a decision probably needs to be handled differently than one that merely requires discussion, for instance.
A good agenda should give each group member a shared understanding of the meeting's purpose and tasks, at a glance. Without one, you'll likely face the Dilbertesque situation of series of pointless meetings that slow down the project rather than move it forward.
Email Rob:
The Problem of Evil
religion
January 18, 2004, 01:25 AM
Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness. All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Everything has its balance, even archetypal good and evil; it is impossible to understand one without the other. It is important to remember that we can never create Utopia, for the very act of achieving it destroys the concept. That which we call good is often bound inseparably to that which we call evil, and to be able to recognize happiness and misery, to be able to accept pain with ecstasy, is not only the human condition, but the only condition that makes any sense in this world.
Posted by Dan on January 18, 2004 at 08:15 AM
Does it not stand to reason, then, that Utopia itself is an evil? Perhaps even the idea of a Utopia is an evil, for it leads us off the Way?
Posted by Rob on January 18, 2004 at 09:35 AM
I wasn't thinking evil, but more like a nonsensical concept. Good and evil are two notions that go hand in hand, and do not exist as separate entities in the world. To imagine a world where there is good without evil, or vice-versa, is to imagine an impossibility.
Email Rob:
Posted by Andyed on January 25, 2004 at 09:49 AM
There's some seminal work from a couple of other CMU'ers, Larkin & Simon, that provides compelling a cognitive psych account of how diagrams an serve as a very rich form of external memory, extending the reach of computation:
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/24189/0