One of the most highly valued features of information architecture is accuracy. Everyone wants everything to be perfect: every answer should be as factually accurate as possible and available immediately to whomever needs it. This was the promise of the internet as a whole, and of the web specifically (especially the “semantic web“, which I have ranted about before).

The Economist has a great article about digital libraries and the effects of imprecision searching for information. Large voices have talked in great detail about the Long Tail of information on the web. That is, information doesn’t lose its value on the internet as quickly as it does elsewhere because it remains available forever. For example, an article printed in a newspaper could easily be lost in the dustbin of history simply because it can’t be easily indexed and read by the people who want to see it the most. The same information in a blog will be available through Google for the rest of eternity.

However, researchers have found that exactly the opposite is happening with scientific media. The number of links to older materials actually declined as it was moved from paper to the web. In other words, the newest, most popular material was linked to more often, creating a shorter tail than had otherwise existed. You can read the article itself for more details on the nature of the experiment itself.

I think that this study actually shows the value of inaccuracy in search. Humans don’t need less accurate information to do their job today. However, in the long term we need less accurate information in order to take us down paths we might not expect. The very act of turning pages in a book might allow some bit of information to catch the eye of the reader (either consciously or unconsciously) and take them down a path they might not otherwise have traveled. Think ask.com and iTunes cover flow vs. the bubble sort.

IMHO, this highlights the fact that the brain needs a level of accuracy in order to function, but also requires a bit of fuzziness in order to grow and thrive. This is just a part of our biology and our cognition. As Information Architects, we need to understand this in order to build the right systems for people.

I admit it, I am a bit obsessive about organization. From Franklin Covey to Palm to Blackberry to laptop utilities I have used them all at one time or another. I have tried different methodologies, from the Cornell Method to GTD to 7 Habits and even made up my own. Of course, all of this came along simply because I am not an organized person by nature. I always needed an outboard brain to help me with the little things so I could prevent them from becoming big things down the road.

Whenever I used a system, there was always some cognitive dissonance between paper space and electronic space. I think this is because of the fundamental differences in the media. Paper is very simple and easy to use. It is well-established, well-supported and handles both structured and unstructured information very well. Electronic data is just the opposite; it is new, evolving, and limited in what it can represent. It can be difficult to use if you aren’t doing exactly what is expected. However, information stored in electronic media are much easier to search, sort, share, store, and duplicate. This is a great advantage for a lot of things, but not everything.

My desire is wanting the ease of use and flexibility of paper, but the power to search and share like electronic media. I think I may have found this in the Livescribe Pulse. The Pulse is a pen and paper combination that allows you to use paper like you want to, but then have the information synchronized with your computer. The text is searchable (through a proprietary application) and can be exported to the web.

In addition, the Pulse is able to record sound as you write, which can be invaluable during meetings where your hand can’t keep up with the banter. You can then touch the page and play back your recording directly from your notes, to see what people were talking about when you wrote your cryptic note. This makes the export capability all the more interesting, as it essentially makes a movie, with the picture being your pages and the audio being the sounds around you as you took your notes. The entire movie is exportable as well (see some examples here).

While it is in its infancy, this is very, very, very interesting technology. There are several things that I wish it had:

• The ability to group like pages from different notebooks to organize my own folders of information (something like a tag cloud).
• The ability to export movies privately as Flash or QuickTime, to only share them with the people who I want to, not the whole web.

Also, while the paper choices are decent, they are proprietary and certainly don’t compare with some of the better paper systems out there (like Moleskine or Levenger). I would like to be able to get normal 8 1/2 x 11″ paper and put them into a Circa notebook easily. Also, there isn’t any graph paper which is a problem for a math geek like myself.

It is new, and I would give it the benefit of the doubt. If you are in the market for a new planner, I would give it a look. It really starts to blur the lines between different media in a way that really benefits the user instead of the purveyor. More on this next time.