Abstract Editor's SummaryIn his 15 years of teaching information architecture classes, Thom Haller's aim for students was to identify their goals and help them work toward them. His 10‐week courses focused on useful knowledge about how humans think and use information and how good information architecture can facilitate the process. The courses covered visual thinking, user actions, interconnections between information items and navigating mental models. From the theories and techniques introduced in the course, the most important points would continually surface when the class considered the question, “What sticks?” Weekly and at the end of a course, the students reflected on lessons with lasting value about the field, user experience and the practice of information architecture. In recent discussions with Haller, former students reported on enduring principles that stuck, resonating through their daily work. They agreed that the core tenet of information architecture — that making things simple and understandable creates the best user experience — is equally true in other domains. The concept is graphically represented by a triangle of connected fingers, symbolizing audience, goals and success metrics around a communication product.

Abstract Editor's SummaryAs big data takes the limelight, it is critical that the value of research data is appreciated and the field of information science garners respect for its contributions. Despite being a logical leader in data management and curation, information science competes with other disciplines in handling research data and often fails to demonstrate its own expertise. Two developments presented through the annual Research Data Access & Preservation (RDAP) Summits hold promise for promoting the field and demonstrating its relevance to data management topics. First, the use of formal and systematic planning for data management is expanding, driven by requirements of many funding agencies. Second, research is offering insights into how researchers appraise, share and reuse data, with identification of data quality indicators related to satisfaction. As the effective use of research data becomes more pressing, the field of information science should lead in demonstrating the value derived from professional data curation, and the RDAP community must define and articulate its own research agenda.

Douglas C. Engelbart, a pioneer in the design of interactive computer environments and the inventor of the computer mouse, died at his California home in early July at the age of 88. Born in 1925 in Portland, Oregon, Engelbart was midway through his college studies at Oregon State College, near the end of World War II, when he was drafted into the United States Navy. While serving as a radar technician in the Philippines, it is said that he was in the library one day on a small island when he happened upon Vannevar Bush's article “As We May Think.” Engelbart was fascinated with the idea of Bush's information retrieval system called Memex. He made it his life's work. In 1996, ASIS&T honored Engelbart with a special award for long-term contributions to the advancement of information science and technology, particularly in recognizing “enhancement of public access to information and discovery of mechanisms for improved transfer and utilization of knowledge.” At the same ASIS&T Annual Meeting at which Engelbart received that award, he was one of seven participants on a special panel entitled Reflections on Our Future. Other panelists were moderator Chuck Davis, Indiana University; Candy Schwartz, Simmons College; Gary Marchionini, University of Maryland; Belver Griffith, Drexel University; Clifford Lynch, University of California; and Eugene Garfield, Institute for Scientific Information. The session featured these visionaries, researchers and academics looking at the state-of-the-art of information science at that time within the context of what it portended for the future of society, as well as for the information profession. An edited transcript of Engelbart's comments is included as a feature article in this issue of the Bulletin. Gary Marchionini wrote the following words upon hearing of Engelbart's death. Some of you might have heard that Doug Engelbart died on July 2. Engelbart was the father of interactive computing and the intellectual inspiration for my work over the past 30 years. In the post-WWII period he was the first to realize that computing could “augment the intellect,” and he began working to demonstrate how to achieve this vision. His 1962 paper “Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework” was always required reading in my HCI seminar because not only does he lay out his vision for improving the human condition through computing but he presents ideas that led to word processing and collaborative work. Engelbart is best known for inventing the mouse and for his demo at the Joint Computer Conference in 1968 that demonstrated online networking (NLS) that included hypertext, word processing and the mouse. Through his bootstrapping institute he aimed to augment our collective intellect through collaborative technologies. Although he recognized the importance of collaborative technologies for all organizations, he was particularly interested in developing ways that professional societies, community groups and other socially responsible organizations could leverage computing to improve their impact and effect. At the 1996 ASIS&T Annual Meeting he made a plea for ASIS&T and other professional societies to increase collaboration to achieve common scholarly goals, a theme that resonated with the strong digital library movement underway at that time. His influence on information science is paramount because he gave us a practical (tractable) path toward an ideal. Engelbart stands with Shannon, Bush and Simon as inspirations for information science. He inspired a generation of information scientists who work in HCI, HCIR and CSCW to empower and augment human capabilities. Most of all, Doug Engelbart was a kind and humble human being who would take the time to talk to young scholars, who accepted the trials as well as the blessings of life and who inspired many of us to keep our focus on why we invest so much in information and technology—to help people live productive and meaningful lives.

Abstract Editor's SummaryIn order to draw meaning from the exponentially increasing quantity of healthcare data, it must be dealt with from a big data perspective, using technologies capable of processing massive amounts of data efficiently and securely. The pharmaceutical industry faces the big data challenge through all phases of the drug development lifecycle. Genomics, clinical monitoring and pharmacovigilance illustrate the value of a big data approach. Whether focusing on genetic and environmental disease risks, pattern detection through real time biosensors for patients or post‐market monitoring of drug effectiveness, each area involves the collection and analysis of numerous variables and requires extreme computing power to reveal the details of interplay between the variables. To make big data work for pharmaceutical information, attention must be paid to data collection on a vast scale, from multiple sites and over long time periods. Big data support must be incorporated into interoperable electronic medical records and presented intuitively through visual analytics.

Abstract Editor's SummaryThis special section explores informatics in the health arena through a collection of illustrative examples. The evolution of controlled vocabularies customized for nursing is described, with appreciation of the importance of nurses' notes in patient records for later retrieval and analysis. The specialized field of public health informatics is presented, offering valuable perspectives and applications geared to serve entire populations rather than individual patients. DOME, an e‐health project in Sweden, explores the effects of patients' access to their own medical records, looking at the pros, cons and implications of online availability of personal health data. Approaching pharmaceutical development as a big data challenge complemented by electronic visualization is shown to facilitate analysis of the complex interplay of numerous variables. Last, a demonstration of information technology applied to emergency healthcare simulation shows how a proposed new technology can be tried out without expensive and time‐consuming prototypes.

Abstract Editor's SummaryFor Thom Haller, an icy spinout in a new truck and frustration with a user manual raised the issue of perceptual affordance, design based on the perceived needs of a user. An object's design ideally serves its user, being visible and clearcut to avoid error, yet design snafus abound. The vehicle manual's verbal references to four‐wheel drive were circuitous and uncertain, and the illustration was no more helpful. Both failed to provide a direct answer to the user's question about how to enable four‐wheel drive or meet reasonable expectations for guidance. For information architects, usability is primary, delivered through sensible and logical placement of information and understandable terminology. Our job is to make the complex clear, and the need is everywhere.

Abstract Editor's SummaryData with high potential information value must be carefully selected, appraised, organized, stored and disseminated. Recognizing this critical management need, the Council on Library and Information Resources' Digital Library Federation (CLIR/DLF), the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and six universities have partnered to sponsor the Data Curation Fellowship Program. This two‐year postdoctoral fellowship brings together information professionals interested in acquiring the diverse skills needed to become a professional data curator, serving as researcher, librarian, technology adopter and policy maker. Acknowledging differences in their own views and experiences, early fellows recognized the need to promote a culture of data sharing to connect stakeholders across technology, disciplinary and institutional boundaries and to develop an infrastructure to support data curation. It is hoped that serious work in data curation will lead to professional recognition of the specialty.

Thom Haller, our associate editor for information architecture, is this issue's guest editor for our annual information architecture (IA) issue. Thom has assembled a broad range of articles in the special section, from the theoretical to the practical and from the verbal to the visual. Each of us is bound to find a gem or two of interest. In addition, in his regular IA Column, Thom examines the impact of the existing landscape on how we go about our information architecture. In our features this issue, we return to the subject of research data access and preservation (RDAP). In her article “Sustainability: Scholarly Repository as an Enterprise,” Oya Rieger addresses a very important topic in the digital world: the requirements and plans to sustain a repository – in this case the pioneering subject archive, arXiv.com, now hosted at Cornell University. And then we have our own records to think about, too. As part of our ASIS&T 75th anniversary coverage, Kathryn La Barre offers timely guidance about accessing the ASIS&T archives at the University of Michigan and discusses the content of the archives. And, finally, in recognition of the increasing importance of research data access and preservation, we launch a new column in this issue. With the support of SIG/DL (Special Interest Group/ Digital Libraries) RDAP Review will join the IA Column as a regular contribution. Susan Wells Parham, head of scholarly communication & digital curation at the Georgia Tech Library, will coordinate the column on behalf of SIG/DL for the current academic year. Joined in her debut by her colleague, Chris Doty, she examines whether the data management plans submitted with National Science Foundation proposals from Georgia Tech mention its institutional repository, SMARTech, and, if so, what they say and what sources they probably used for their information.

Wherever you build there is an existing landscape. In my mind, a reading of the landscape is an extremely important phase. You have to make something that is unique to that place. I've been thinking about the idea of “existing landscape.” As user experience professionals, we strive to develop products that meet the existing landscapes of our users. We try to understand what they want to accomplish and their mental models and understanding of the online performance environment. I'm also fascinated by how the “existing landscape” relates to how we go about accomplishing our work. “Don't forget number nine.” “This is now priority number one, with rollout planned for three months from now.” “OK,” I said, “Let's list project number nine at the top of the board.” I took a green marker and squished it into a prominent position. Then we ignored it. I'd like to say I had the instructional foresight to have everyone begin thinking of the audiences who would be using the new priority one product. And I would love to comment on how we thought fully about how we might plan for a better user experience, even before the product is procured. Instead I believe we all sighed. Including me – and I wasn't even part of the team. What could we have done? Perhaps we could have talked about what happens when any prefabricated performance tool is dropped into a work environment. Perhaps we could have focused more on the existing landscape of the people who were about to get this new product. What will change for them when this new product drops into their lives? Will they need to stop using one product and start using another? And what about the development team planning the products? Will this team of professionals successfully navigate their work context? Or will the time crunch and management requirements thwart them, keeping them from fully understanding their audience and their audience's needs? The obstacles are significant; but maybe they have the eyes to read the existing landscape.