Comments on: Organizing Information Is Finite

By: Nancy Duarte

Nancy Duarte — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 21:30:44 +0000

Thank you!

By: Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:06:34 +0000

I absolutely enjoyed reading this post and have recently been viewing your website for a few months now. I manage a internet site committed to the fight against OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) and would like to list your web blog inside my information section for the advantage of my own readership. There is always a good deal of misinformation these days on the web and whenever I happen across a very good quality blog like this I would like to pass these on to my readers — I hope it is okay with you, I have inserted your web page link within my highly valued resources section (listed here; http://www.whatisocd.org/resources/). Thank you – be sure to keep up the quality work it is much valued.

By: Ebutube

Ebutube — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:02:47 +0000

Awesome stuff. Thanks a lot for posting this. Can’t believe I didn’t visit this blog earlier. You guys have some amazing stuff going on here! Keep up the good work.

By: Mike Donlan

Mike Donlan — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:14:04 +0000

I am in the middle of writing a new presentation. I’ll have a chance to practice it. Thanks for the ideas!

By: Paula Tesch

Paula Tesch — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:56:52 +0000

as the photographer, i can tell you those reflections are 100% real. although the photoshop gurus in our office would make quick work of it if it weren’t. :o)

By: doug

doug — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:03:01 +0000

Author and metathinker Nathan Shedroff decided to one up his mentor Wurman by claiming information was organized in *seven* ways, not merely five (http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/6.html): alphabets, locations, time, continuum, numbers, categories, and randomness. (Shedroff kept L, A, T, C, but expanded on H with ‘continuum,’ ‘numbers,’ and ‘randomness.’) One might argue that continuum actually *is* hierarchy, since he says that a continuum measures a value scale, or the relativity of value X to value Y.

Where Shedroff’s taxonomy kind of breaks down for me is in 1) numbers and 2) randomness. ‘Numbers’ seems hierarchical, even categorical, but does it really need its own space in the taxonomy? And ‘randomness’? Really? That seems like a copout to me; why not add ‘miscellaneous’ to Wurman and get it over with.

By: Lertad

Lertad — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:53:37 +0000

I think that since the human brain thinks and interprets information in patterns, categorizing information in groups in a system such as LATCH really gives a refreshing feeling. This looks like a very useful tool to begin interpreting information in different ways. Thanks a lot!

I’m curious, do you also find Tufte’s work inspirating? (http://snipurl.com/3i3jr)

Also, is that a real reflection on a surface, or is it photoshop? :D

By: Mike Wagner

Mike Wagner — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:48:03 +0000

Really helpful post. A new title for me to explore and a practical way to approach organizing information.

Keep creating…a story worth repeating,
Mike

By: Ric Bretschneider

Ric Bretschneider — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 03:34:57 +0000

Nice post. Information Anxiety was probably the first design book that really got to me – old but still pulled down from my shelf every now and then. Thanks for these useful, fun, and lovely examples!