Growing up, my mom forbade any gun-like objects in the house. She loathed guns with an unabiding passion, so I didn’t have what many boys had — water pistols, cap guns, and the like.

I grew up loathing guns myself, perhaps to an irrational degree. I don’t know.

Anyway, it’s come to my recent attention that Mother’s Day (which the United States is celebrating today) began not as a “Hallmark Holiday” as I originally assumed, but as a proto-feminist holiday, to gather for the cause of peace following the Civil War.

There’s a sad irony today, what with the Powers That Be, those who most readily hide behind concepts of Family Values and middle-American notions of Mom and Apple Pie, jeopardizing the lives of those mothers’ sons and daughters in a needless and pointless war.

I know my mom’s gun-free world was one of fantasy, but damn if it wasn’t a fantasy worth aspiring to.

On August 13-16, Adaptive Path will be presenting its annual flagship event, UX Week. This is our conference for UX professionals, and it’s going to be a doozy this year.

If you look at the program, you’ll see a bunch of great sessions, involving search engines, interaction design, management challenges, participatory design, social media, usability for web 2.0, and more.

We’re extremely pleased to announce Deborah Adler as a keynoter. As a graphic design student, Deborah developed the SafeRX pill bottle design, which evolved into Target’s ClearRX pharmaceutical system.

If you register by Friday May 11 (two days!) you’ll get the early registration price of only $1,795 ($500 off the full registration price). And use promotional code FOPM and receive an extra 15% off!

I received a reviewers copy of David Weinberger’s latest book, Everything is Miscellaneous. I’ve been following David’s work since at least early 1999 (judging by an old peterme.com post (6 Feb 1999), and have been fortunate enough to have gotten to know him. I find The Cluetrain Manifesto to still be an important book 7 years later. (The less said about Small Pieces, Loosely Joined, the better.)

I’ve eagerly awaited Everything, and it does not disappoint. Many of my readers are information architects or in related fields, and, yes, you should all read this book. Really. It captures in one place much of what has been hot in IA over the last 5 years — facets, categories rooted in cognitive psychology, tagging, etc.

But I’m thinking that anyone whose work involves information and classification should read it. That includes, say, my partner, who is an archaeologist. Actually, it probably includes *anyone* in a research field. David’s exposition and insights are key for understanding where we’re headed in this increasingly digital world we live in.

What sets David’s book apart from other recent texts covering similar ground (say Ambient Findability and Shaping Things) is that, fundamentally, it is not a book on information or technology; it’s a work of philosophy. David has a doctorate in Philosophy, and it shows on every page.

I mean this in a good way–David’s background gives him a perspective quite distinct from others involved in this conversation, and it’s valuable in connecting his themes with a larger purpose. Because David’s book isn’t about information, it’s about understanding, knowledge, and meaning — fundamentally, it’s a book on how the human condition is evolving.

In later posts, perhaps I’ll address my take on some of the specifics of this work. As it turns out, I’ve already addressed many in posts that go back to the genesis of this site…

– Memory palaces (14 May 2000)
– Tags and classification schemes (Clay Shirky’s Viewpoints are Overrated, Metadata for the Masses)
– faceted classification (seminal post,
– Collaborative filtering and algorithmic relationship creation (IA2000 presentation)
– relinquishing control (essay for Adaptive Path)
– social network analysis (I’ve interviewed Valdis Krebs)
– basic level categories (12 Dec 1999)
– the Semantic Web (11 April 2001)

A necessary precursor to Everything is Wurman’s Information Anxiety (the original, not the puerile second edition).

Shorpy.com is the “100-year-old Photo Blog,” and everyday there’s at least one photo that makes it worth subscribing to its RSS feed.

Recent favorites:

Angel’s Curve

Woman Mail Carrier (I so have a crush on her)

Leapfrog, 1908

Photo from here.

The Design Observer recently featured a sloppily-written article on why Apple is bad for design. Seeing the post’s title, I eagerly expected a thoughtful critique of that most vaunted of companies — nobody’s perfect, and there must be reasonable things to comment on. Instead, the DO article is an incoherent rambling on issues of form, style, and rounded corners, and ends up as much ado about nothing.

I thought, well, I could do better than that. So here I go.

The main reason why Apple is bad for design is that they’re a highly idiosyncratic organization. As such, it’s nearly impossible to copy them, because no other organization has the elements that allow Apple to product great design. This means that when others do try to copy them, they focus solely on the superficial aspects of the design.

I would argue that the main reason Apple is bad for design is because they’re so secretive about their work. So, while they benefit design because they demonstrate the value and power of design in the marketplace, they prove a detriment to design because they don’t share how they achieve such brilliance.

And because they don’t share, they make it look too easy. If you dig deeper, and listen to the stories of what it took to get iPod (all the iterations on form, as mentioned in Steven Levy’s The Perfect Thing), or iPhone (two and a half years to get it to market), you know that it’s not easy. But that hard work is lost on many, and the seeming simplicity of the end product suggests simplicity in the process. Which leads to people coming to Adaptive Path, and saying, “We want to be the iPod of [product category],” without any understanding of the deep commitment that it takes to get there.

If Apple were to share, we’d understand the tradeoffs that go into the decisions they make; the countless attempts before settling on a solution; the obsessive attention to detail, often at the expense of the bottom line; and doubtless other things that I know nothing about. And other organizations would then appreciate what it really takes in order to be a design-led organization, and, hey, that would be great for design.

(Now, it might not be great for Apple, but that’s not what we’re talking about.)

Apple is bad for design because they contain a brilliance that simply cannot be emulated. And that brilliance allows them to approach design in ways that are harmful for those organizations that aren’t brilliant. Dan, in his book Designing for Interaction, holds up Apple as an example of genius design — design that emerges from the mind of the designer. This is in contrast to user-centered design, systems, design, and activity-centered design, which all incorporate users more directly.

So, this could encourage other companies to practice genius design. The problem is, the people at those companies aren’t geniuses. Steve Jobs is a genius (and has had it proven numerous times throughout his career). And when non-geniuses practice genius design, bad things happen. Instead, what’s good for design in the overwhelming majority of cases is more of a user-centered approach, because this approach is accessible to many more people, and thus could have a much broader impact on design.

Hrm. And now I’m a little stumped. Because, in sum, I do think Apple has been quite good for design. Could it be better? Sure. Have design and designers benefited from Apple’s success? Definitely. I’d love to hear your thoughts on why Apple is bad for design…

I’m trying to understand who the AIGA thinks they’re fooling with their recent-ish label, “AIGA, the professional association for design.” They claim AIGA no longer stands for “American Institute of Graphic Arts,” and that instead the organization’s purview is big-D-Design.

And then they announced the lineup for their big 2007 Annual event, NEXT, and while it looks like a good event, it’s a *graphic design* event. Of the speakers listed on the promotional email I received:

Kurt Andersen, author of Heyday, host of “Studio 360”–Moderator
David C. Baker, ReCourses, Inc.
Marian Bantjes, illustrator, designer
Janine Benyus, Biomimicry Guild–Just added!
Shoshana Berger, ReadyMade
Paul Budnitz, Kidrobot
Moira Cullen, Coca-Cola North America
Nick Currie, a.k.a. Momus
Robin Edman, Swedish Industrial Design Foundation
Ed Fella, illustrator, designer, photographer
Tobias Frere-Jones, Hoefler & Frere-Jones, Inc.
Stanley Hainsworth, Starbucks
Allan Haley, Monotype Imaging
Grace Hawthorne, ReadyMade
Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper
Jonathan Hoefler, Hoefler & Frere-Jones, Inc.
Maira Kalman, illustrator, designer
Julie Lasky, I.D. Magazine
Daniel Libeskind, Studio Daniel Libeskind–Just added!
Ellen Lupton, Maryland Institute College of Art and Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum
Katherine McCoy, High Ground Studios
Michael McCoy, High Ground Studios
Christoph Niemann, illustrator, animator, graphic designer
Adrian Shaughnessy, author of How to be a Graphic Designer Without Losing Your Soul
Garth Walker, Orange Juice Design
Michelle Washington on 2007 AIGA medalist Georg Olden

is overwhelmingly oriented toward graphic design. Again, there’s nothing wrong with that… but is *anyone* buying the idea that AIGA is truly “the professional association for design”?

Later I’ll write up my recollections of the Gel conference, but first I wanted to dash off a little rant based on something I heard. One of the presenters, Dan Dubno, brought forth the canard about how America is falling behind in math and science education, and that we’re not turning out as many scientists and engineers, with the implication that countries such as China and India are going to surpass us and eat our lunch.

Hogwash.

Not hogwash about the data. I’m sure the data is true. I’m sure we have fewer people interested in science and math.

So what?

The global market we’re entering into is one that increasingly values soft skills, and the kinds of understanding borne of education in the social sciences and humanities. This isn’t to devalue science and math — they’re critical — but there’s a lot to suggest that they won’t be the defining disciplines of the 21st century (the way they were of the 20th century).

As we’re realizing, “innovation” now doesn’t mean the niftiest new technology. Innovation is about identifying unmet needs and satisfying those. That identification increasingly comes from folks with backgrounds in the humanities and social sciences. (Very minor data point: my company, Adaptive Path, was started by people only with backgrounds in the humanities and social sciences; none of us even had a design degree.)

Success in the global market will be one of understanding and empathy, will be due to an ability to appreciate trends, to synthesize information from a variety of sources, etc.

Again, I don’t mean to undervalue science and math; they’re crucial. And you know what? Folks will continue to study those, and that’s great.

But I don’t get why folks are so up in arms about us “falling behind.” That’s 1950’s thinking.

Tomorrow I leave Ottawa for New York City. I’ve been to Ottawa a couple times before, but never ate so consistently well as I did this go around.

My first dinner was at Domus Cafe, which proudly features regional cuisine, and does it a delightful service.

Breakfast the next morning was at Benny’s Bistro, where I had an excellent croissant (they’re a French baker).

Lunch that day came from the Black Tomato, where I sat at the bar, chatted with the restaurant’s manager (and maybe owner) while quaffing a St. Ambrose Pale and eating a good tandoori chicken platter.

Dinner was served at Whalebone Oyster House, probably the most yupscale of all the places I ate. The raw oysters and other seafood were delectable.

The only disappointment was my dinner the following night, at Khao Thai. It was talked up on Chowhound, but maybe I ordered wrong — the choo chee fish was nowhere near as good as what I get delivered to my house in Berkeley.

Today began with a fresh-from-the-oven bran muffin at Jodalina, and then off to Cumberland for an all-you-can-eat “sugarbush” buffet at Proulx Farm, which offered up excellent (thick and eggy) pancakes, beans cooked in maple syrup, and crispy pork. Oh, and maple TAFFY ON SNOW, which I’d never heard of before, and which is made by pouring maple syrup over snow or ice, letting it start to harden, and then affixing to a stick from which you consume it. SUGAR SHOCK.

Today ended with a delightful meal at the Wellington Gastropub, a cozy yet modern eatery, where I had an excellent parmesan risotto, and Ontario pickerel, something I’ve never seen in my part of the country. The beer selection was high quality as well. (As were the delightful people I ate with!)

Next time I’m in Ottawa, I want to do more downscale ethnic stuff. We drove through the Chinatown area (more of a Pan-Asia Town), and there were many enticing options there…

Kurt Vonnegut died. Like many nerdly types, I devoured his novels in junior high. Hell, I even got a teacher to let me use BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS for a class project, and I remember drawing assholes on the chalkboard in front of the class.

While he is understandably lauded for CAT’S CRADLE and SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE, my two favorite Vonnegut novels are ones that don’t receive the same attention: THE SIRENS OF TITAN, which, for my money, is easily his most clever and nihilistic, and MOTHER NIGHT, a remarkably touching tale with the amazingly… true phrase, “We are what we pretend to be.”

I was pleased to see how mentally agile Vonnegut remained as he aged. His appearance on The Daily Show a couple years back (where Jon couldn’t contain his fanboyness) delighted.

Though, for those of us who idolized him, I find this story of Justin Hall’s very grounding. Vonnegut, at least in 1995, reviled computer-mediated communication, and didn’t see it’s remarkable potential for bringing people together. Nobody’s perfect.

I’m planning a road trip for late May, and considering driving along the Natchez Trace. Have you ever been? Is it worth it? Please add your thoughts to the comments.