The problem with trees Many systems are organized hierarchically. The CERNDOC documentation system is an example, as is the Unix file system, and the VMS/HELP system. A tree has the practical advantage of giving every node a unique name. However, it does not allow the system to model the real world. For example, in a hierarchical HELP system such as VMS/HELP, one often gets to a lead on a tree such as: HELP COMPILER SOURCE_FORMAT PRAGMAS DEFAULTS only to find a reference to another leaf: Please see HELP COMPILER COMMAND OPTIONS DEFAULTS PRAGMAS and it is necessary to leave the system and re-enter it. What was needed was a link from one node to another, because in this case the information was not naturally organized into a tree. Tim Berners-Lee, Seeing With Fresh Eyes A City Is Not a Tree hierarchywww
Cool URIs don't change An Essay by Tim Berners-Lee www.w3.org What makes a cool URI? A cool URI is one which does not change. What sorts of URI change? URIs don't change: people change them. The User Interface of URLs www
AI-driven "Design"? An Article by Jorge Arango jarango.com Like a programming language interpreter, GPT-3 translates the designer’s intent from a language they’re already familiar with (English) to one they need to learn (Figma’s information architecture, as manifested in its UI.) This can be easier for a new/busy designer, much like Python is easier and faster to work with than assembly language. But that’s not “designing” — at least not any more than compiling Python code is “programming.” In both cases, all the system does is translate human intent into a lower level of abstraction. Sure, the process saves time — but the key is getting the intent part right. I’ll be convinced the system is “designing” when it can produce a meaningful output to a directive like “change the product page’s layout to increase conversions.” aidesignintentabstraction