Kant as a PowerPoint presentation. Interview with Oliver Reichenstein

By Mikael Krogerus

 

The more abstract the information we have to get our heads round, the more important its presentation becomes. Web designer Oliver Reichenstein on the parallels between classical and information architecture, the question of how design can be used to stimulate thinking, and why he misses the good old cigarette: it helped when you needed to take a break.

 

Mr Reichenstein, every year 51 million new websites are created and a million new Facebook profiles are set up. We produce 1,500 billion Google search queries, send 8,600 billion text messages and 52,000 billion emails. We generate, collect and store more data than ever before. Why?

Anything that cannot be proved is considered hearsay, and you need data to back up findings. However, the increasing amount of data being produced leads to great uncertainty. What is factually accurate? Who and what can still be considered trustworthy? The teacher? The encyclopaedia? The media? The more data we collect, the broader the range of possible interpretations becomes and the more insecure we feel with regard to our grasp of reality. Instead of simply sitting down and thinking, we gather more and more data in the hope that at some point reality will become self-evident, while in most cases this usually just leads to even more room for interpretation.

 

Data can reveal how crazy some ideas are…

…but not every view of reality can be verified on the basis of data! Given the growing mountain of useless data and the idiotic ways in which it is instrumentalised, I am much more inclined to seek coherent, unhurried and untainted theory than to look for even more data.

 

On the other hand, you yourself make money out of the increasing volume of data. You describe yourself as an information architect. What exactly do you design?

Initially my primary focus was on creating hierarchical structures, for instance developing classification systems for libraries or drawing tree structures that show which file is stored at which location on the server. Although the word “architecture” in “information architecture” is merely a metaphor, there are nevertheless certain similarities between classical and information architecture: picture the data mass as a building you have to find your way through.

 

So, to stay with the metaphor: companies lose track of where they have stored their vast array of services or where they keep their own information in the sprawl of this complex, while the customer can’t find his way to the end of an offer. How do you go about resolving these problems?

By separating the wheat from the chaff.

 

How can you tell what information is relevant and what isn’t?

If you carry out a thorough analysis of the information architecture of a company, you quickly come across discrepancies between the company’s self-image and its external image. Which of these you rectify and which you leave untouched depends to a large extent on the company’s definition of itself.

 

But strictly speaking most of the data in a company is – as is the case on the web – garbage: documents that have been stored multiple times, meaningless posts, pseudo-news.

Is there not quite simply too much data around? Would it be pessimistic to conclude that we are doing to our minds with information technology what we have done to our environment with analogue technology?

 

What does that mean? Are we in the throes of what might be called pollution of the brain? Is all the useless data contaminating or blocking our thought processes?

We have more and more data – and less and less clarity. An optimist believes that more data and possible interpretations will lead to a more differentiated, less ideological picture of reality, as false assumptions can be refuted more easily. Apart from the prevalence of an ever-expanding relativism, the pessimist sees people become increasingly entrenched in extreme beliefs. Particularly the so-called social media enable us to choose our own reality and shut ourselves off from everything else around us. This applies not only to political stances. The real question is what position do you take if you want to avoid both the optimist’s and the pessimist’s view of the information society. While this might not be the position likely to attract most attention from the media, it is definitely the most interesting one.

 

Okay, objectively: does a large amount of data lead to better decisions?

Not necessarily. First you collect data and then you try to discern structures. If these structures are not merely coincidental – like the faces we discover in cloud formations if we look long enough – then we find actual information. Knowledge is created when we put these pieces of information together in a meaningful way. But to do this you need experience in grappling with knowledge. Experience leads to a certain type of intuition when we are dealing with information. The more data we have, the further away we get from knowledge and intuition as we are overwhelmed by the sheer volume.

 

Could that even mean that we make better decisions the less we know?

We know from the sciences as well as handicrafts: anything we have obtained a theoretical knowledge of has to be tried out in real life before we can truly master it. Everyone’s an expert in the information society. A couple of Google queries are all it takes for me to be able to call my doctor’s advice into question. But I have no experience with this information and therefore no intuition. I know something, but there is nothing I can do with this knowledge. What’s more: based on my search history, the search engine that provided me with these results might soon know more about me than I do myself. Google might even know that I have shingles before I show symptoms of the illness. And that is spooky.

 

A popular reaction these days to the complexity of large amounts of data is the attempt to make things more tangible with the help of infographics. You have been a pioneer in this field. Is it true that we understand interconnections and abstract phenomena more easily if they are presented visually rather than explained in words?

Infographics are often abused. One thing that can be said for sure, though, is that pictures are quicker than texts – and more convincing. If the presentation is clear and clean, then we are much more likely to consider the information relevant than if we see it in the form of raw spreadsheet data.

 

Information is beautiful – but not relevant. You’re digging your own grave here – with room for your colleagues as well.

There are some kinds of information that can be explained better in images, while for others texts are better. Being able to understand this and apply this knowledge is hard work.

 

What ground rules would there be for someone who wanted to do this professionally?

The first and most important ground rule is that the infographic should tell a story clearly without manipulating the data or becoming too speculative. As with any other type of design, you have to get the structure right first. To be able to design a good infographic you really have to know and understand the data well.

 

What can’t be put into a graphic?

Philosophy, poetry, music, painting, conversations with children, love stories…

 

A heart with an arrow in it? If you have something important to say, you don’t need a lot of words.

Yes, but all the subtle nuances of the love story cannot be made visible in a graphic! Theories can also be very difficult to visualise. I once saw a PowerPoint presentation of Kant’s “Critique of Judgement”. 633 pages in 16 slides. That’s naïve. It’s not about the lexical content of the book but about Kant’s helping you to learn to think.

 

In concrete terms, then: how do you promote thinking with your designs?

Let me give you an example: our text editor. As is the case with all my projects, it’s all about one single question: what is essential? “Writer” only has one objective – to support writing. That’s it. So I chose a generous design. As soon as you start writing, everything else disappears from the screen. Your focus remains on the sentence you are writing. You cannot change the font, choose a different colour, insert tables or format the text. This year we will pass the one million mark with an app that promotes writing and by doing so thinking.

 

What qualifications do companies and institutions need in order to be able to survive the flood of data coming towards them?

The most important lesson is that the contents of a company are the company. This means that we shouldn’t be improving the appearance of the contents but using the contents to improve the appearance of the company. It is impossible to turn companies upside down overnight. But they can improve their own processes and by doing so bring about significant changes in the medium term. Better processes generally lead to better results. As information architects we can simplify information processes. This makes what we do anything but insignificant.

 

What abilities will be more important for employees to have in the future?

People who are capable of picking out what is absolutely essential among all the white noise of the constant rush of data, and who can process their insights and communicate what they have learned clearly and understandably: these are the ones who will be most sought after in the job market.

 

How can you learn how to do this?

Copying and repeating have a bad reputation in our society, yet they are the key to learning. In fact, they are a prerequisite for our being able to memorise things. And we mustn’t forget the importance of taking breaks. I find it hard to do so myself. There are very few moments left in our daily life when nothing is going on. We constantly allow ourselves to be influenced by new stimuli – especially via our mobile devices. I’m not going to advocate that people take up smoking, but the cigarette created a moment in which nothing else was happening.

 

And what about the future of the people on the other side of the fence, the entrepreneurs and companies?

I also believe that more and more entrepreneurs will ask themselves: do I really need to have a finger in every pie? Am I not wasting my time if I join in every new fad that comes along? Unfortunately, conservativeness is not the answer here either. Every time technology solves a problem it creates new ones. This is what has to be addressed. Neither retreating from nor rushing headlong into the new era can offer salvation. Technology is neither the cause nor the solution of the problem. Technology merely amplifies it. However, one question remains: what are we as a company going to say no to?

 

Oliver Reichenstein is co-owner of the digital design agency iA (Information Architects) and a rising star in the web design universe. He studied philosophy in Basel and at the Sorbonne in Paris, after which he worked as a web designer in Zurich before moving to Tokyo in 2003. He was responsible for the design of the Zeit Online website as well as the relaunched site of the Zurich Tages-Anzeiger and the redesign and rebranding of Doodle. His customers include the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Pro Sieben, Ringier, Mozilla, Interio and Freitag.