Review -- Ambient Findability, Ch 5-7

This is the second blog installment on Morville’s Ambient Findability. In an earlier blog I reviewed chapters 1 to 4. This installment finishes my effort with an overview of the last three chapters.

• Chapter 5: Push and Pull – Do we want information and advertising pushed on us or do we want to pull it on demand, and how much of a good thing is too much?
• Chapter 6: Boundary Objects – the internet exposes us to crossover technologies and concepts.
• Chapter 7: Inspired Decisions – should we trust experts or the wisdom of crowds?

In Chapter 5, Morville comments that “Spam is the poster child for the dark side of push.” He commends Google for finding a good balance between push and pull by allowing paid advertising but clearly identifying it as such in the search results. He again advances his main thesis regarding findability: “no matter how pretty the logo, if users can’t find what they need, the brand is damaged.”

In Chapter 6 he describes important ways of classifying and organizing information (e.g., taxonomies, faceted classification schemes, ontologies, folksonomies, polyheirarchy, thesauris, etc.). He also touches on the importance of semantics vs. mere keywords on the internet and how that debate is playing out.

Chapter 7 borrows Eric S. Raymond’s now famous cathedral and bazaar metaphor to contrast expert information (the cathedral) vs. the wisdom of crowds (the bazaar), or as he rhetorically asks on page 171: “Why choose Google’s graffiti ghetto over our scholarly society?” Morville argues for a balanced approach. However, he very usefully points out that with choice comes power (page 163): “As we take responsibility for our own decisions, our relationship with authority changes. Doctors can still help us, but they are no longer in control. We are.”

Morville’s book is insightful; I highly recommended it. One would do well to commit its many readable metaphors and analogies to memory. One should also forget a few things along the way as well. In an earlier blog I listed evolution as one of the things the reader should forget. I will finish my discussion of this book with the only other disagreement I can muster regarding this otherwise excellent work: eastern mysticism. I wish to argue that the eastern mysticism that Morville falsely associates with many of his conclusions is misstated and should be forgotten.

Morville’s Mysticism

Morville often alludes to eastern mysticism in his book. For example, to Morville, push and pull are the yin and yang of the internet. In many places elsewhere, Morville claims to be championing a mystical “both/and” philosophy of embracing opposites.

The Western Tradition: Logic

What do I mean? Logically, there is a principle of non-contradiction that states that A cannot be non-A in the same sense and in the same way (in other words, it is either A or not A). Eastern mysticism argues that something can be A and non-A in the same sense and in the same way (that is, it is both A and not A). As an example consider the following.

I am a father and not a father. What do I mean? Perhaps I mean that I am a Catholic priest but have no children. In that case I am using the word father in two different senses, first spiritually then biologically. Or perhaps I was not a father, and later, became one. So I know what it is like to be a father and to not be a father. In that case, I am using the word father in the same sense (the biological one), but applied to something experienced at two different times.

But suppose that I insist that I am using the word father in a biological sense in both instances and I am applying each at the same moment in time. This is the philosophy of both/and – I am both a father and not a father in the same sense and at the same time. The western tradition has a word for this: nonsense. But eastern philosophy has no argument. The Tao Te Ching embraces true opposites stating “bend and be straight.” To this end, Morville quotes Lao Tzu: “Be still like a mountain and flow like a river.” What does this mean?

We should not import our western mindset into this statement; the mystical both/and does not mean to be contemplative and then active, it does not mean to be stalwart and then motive. It means to be simultaneously immovable and moving. This is the sound of one hand clapping. It is both/and. It is nonsense.

In various parts, Morville claims to be championing both/and mysticism. For example, on page 107 Morville says “…Google’s 4K pages… load within seconds and still look very sexy on a Treo. Tastes great. Less filling. The duality of Tai Chi. The genius of the AND.” In between the beer commercial and the religion, Morville is making a point that one can accommodate seeming opposites. However, Morville would do well not to confuse this with the duality of Tai Chi, which accommodates true opposites.

It is good (and possible) for something to be fast loading AND good looking. Therefore, they are not true opposites. They are not yin and yang. This is not an example of both/and. Nor are any of the many examples he purports to give.

Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, we should dump Morville’s eastern mysticism and embrace his logical conclusions. Morville’s text is about findability as a paradigm for web design. In this area he is an expert and we should consider his conclusions and opinions carefully. But when it comes to his statements about eastern duality, he is an amateur like the rest of us. The western tradition accommodates paradox, but it does not accommodate nonsense; neither should we.