More of the same...
My passion for UI architecture has gradually developed over more than ten years, and I began working in this field almost without noticing it.
I started in advertising, back in the mid-nineties, and - even then - I was always striving for simplicity. I used to enjoy logo design more than anything else, because when it comes to logos, (or "logoi" as we should say), the essence is clarity. Logo design is, or at least it should be, a quest for a few essential traits able to convey a great deal of information. Unsurprisingly, when - at the end of the decade - I moved into web design, I tried my best to keep my interfaces uncluttered. But in spite of my efforts, I lacked the "tools of the trade".
Interface design is definitely more than a pretty face and, without strong mark-up skills, I became adept at figuring out what was possible and what wasn't as I went along. However, I have always been convinced that no one can design an interface without knowing exactly what happens under the bonnet. With that in mind, I decided to spend a few years honing my technical skills and moved to London in June 2000, to begin studying for an MSc in Interactive Multimedia. At that time I was also working for a large software house.
A few years down the line things were going very well. Not only was I more proficient, but the Internet was finally finding its feet. There were fewer differences between browsers - anyone who has ever being caught in between Internet Explorer 5 and Netscape 4 knows what I mean - and the phrase "knowledge of web standards" started making its appearance in job descriptions for web designers.
Shortly after, both "accessibility" issues and SEO ("Search Engine Optimisation") started pushing for a better way of coding web pages. Today, as a result, web development is significantly easier than it was. Not necessarily simpler, but easier. At least, now we know what we are supposed to do...
As I became more technically proficient, it became increasingly clear to me that the vast majority of usability issues cannot be fixed "one interface at a time". Web designers are often presented with challenges that can only be solved at the architectural level.
I am not denying that good design (and sometimes just plain common sense) can fix a good number of usability problems but, quite often, interface problems originate from somewhere upstream.
Architectural challenges do not simply stem from navigation issues or complex procedures. Sometimes even the integration of a new and relatively simple feature within an existing application calls for a structural review. In cases such as these, the aim is to keep the architecture consistent and future-proof.
When it comes to functions, it is often about finding a way to translate from computers to humans and, even more often, it can be about choosing what should be "lost in translation".
Only a few years ago, the challenge was to find a way to make a website (often little more than an online brochure) more entertaining. It was, in other words, a matter of finding something to add. Now, with plentiful options, it is more a matter of identifying what should be taken away or moved elsewhere.
The much trumpeted "Web 2.0" is nothing more than a new way of combining and branding relatively old technology, but it is nonetheless having a strong impact on a growing number of web-based applications. Navigating through some of the most popular websites can be challenging, mostly because of the addition of increasingly complex features and the necessity of bolting them on top of an existing structure.
Moreover, marketing departments (naturally inclined to add banners and gizmos) have never been so dangerously "web-aware"...
And so here I am, working as a UI architect. I enjoy it. It makes perfect sense to me and, believe it or not, it is nothing but more of the same. I still try to keep things simple...