[Sigia-l] IA myths: conceptual model of navigation - was: mixing applesand oranges and tomatoes

[George Olsen]

Anne Hjortshoj said:
> Which begs the question: will IAs be able to continue -without-
> addressing page layout/interaction design? Is anyone currently
> practicing IA without doing so?
>
> I know that the core definition of IA leaves this out, and I'm fine
> with that. But I'm not sure it's something that a practicing IA can
> safely ignore.

Depends on whose "core definition" you use... "Content IA" (i.e. Polar
Bear) i.e. doesn't pay as much attention to

I've always seen page layout as an integral part of what I do -- but I also
come from a graphic design background, specificially publication design.

At the risk of engaging in IAish hairsplitting I think there's actually a
couple important distinctions to be made:

* UI design traditionally has focused mostly on being the face of
*interactive* systems (software products) -- in essence the visual
representation of the underlying interaction design. Software typically
doesn't have extensive content in the way that a publication (book,
magazine, content-focused website) does.

* Publication design has traditionally focused on the presentation of
content and has centuries of experience in this area. This includes lots of
attention to the visual expression of the underlying information
architecture -- even if this wasn't a term used by the people doing it. But
since it was print-focused, obviously there's not a lot of interaction
involved (at least in the software/web sense).

With the web, we've seen the convergence of these two traditions, so that
many websites involve a combination of UI/publication design. (And with
broadband we may yet see a convergence with multimedia design concerns,
similar the convergence that took place during the CD-ROM era).

The balance will be different for different sites. Web-based apps require
more interaction design/UI work, while content-base sites require more
IA/publication design work.

Jesse James Garrett said:
> Information architects do more than information architecture. It has
> always been thus, and always thus it shall be.

This is why there's so much confusion over "broad IA." It's really a
collection of 4-6 disciplines: content IA, interaction design, UI design,
info/publication design, user research and usability testing.

Tanya Rabourn said:
> I think in at least specifying what items
> should be grouped together on a page you are communicating to whomever is
> doing your page layout that those items are related. Hopefully they can
> take that and apply other gestalt principles of grouping -- proximity,
> similarity of color, size, orientation, etc. in their graphic design.

This is where we need to be careful about respecting other professions. One
of the thing that fuels the "who owns the wireframe" arguments is that IAs
too often assume graphic designers don't know anything about form --
the "functional" aspects of appearance; in other words, visual design used
to aid usability, as opposed just aesthetics and style -- which needless to
say is extremly irritating to those designers who are knowledgeable about
structure and care about it. And especially if the designer *does* know
more about the IA in this area.

So I think Tanya's suggestion is a good one.

> It's good to know these principles even if you don't get to practice them.

Agreed. There are many things outside "IA" (broad or content-focused) that
we need to be aware of, and at least be able to talk to the people who
specialize in them. We just need to remember that we're usually not as
expert in these other fields as the specialists, so while we needn't be
cowed by them, a little humility also is in order.