[Sigia-l] IA and medium (long)

[James KALBACH]

What are the differences between IA and Librarianship?

As an ex-librarian and practicing IA, I find this question extremely
interesting. 

At the highest level, both seek to match an information need with an
information resource. But at the risk of making generalizations and
stereotypes, I think distinctions can be made.

Medium - I do think that medium gives rise to some of the differences, but
itself is not the distinguishing factor.  "Cyber Librarian" and "Digital
Librarian" are becoming more and more common. Still, IAs tend to deal with
volatile, dynamic formats that require flexibility and scalability for
future change. Librarians - even "digital" ones - tend to work with
tradition, more stabile formats. This means that IAs can often determine
the type and amount of content to be presented, where librarians generally
cannot (as Ben Henick mentioned). 

Time scale - Presently, IAs tend to work on much shorter time scales. Our
work is often project-based with a specific, foreseeable goal, even for
in-house IAs. Librarians are concerned with the ongoing maintenance of a
system over time.  Here I think both groups can learn for the other: IAs
need to develop less-disposable solutions, and librarians need to pick up
the speed with which they can accommodate new media and technologies.

Interaction and Transaction - While both professions focus on finding
information, IAs are more concerned with interaction and transaction. I
agree with David Heller's take on IA as "interactive LIS" to some degree.

Interface vs. Deep Structuring - Few librarians are as concerned with the
display of information as IAs. The former group tends to focus on deep
structuring (for lack of a better term) of information - classification,
cross referencing, authority control, etc. This is generally not the focus
of an IA (yet). Even a sitemap is much closer to the surface of an
interface than most library work products. 

Coverage - IAs often work within a finite information space to solve a
specific problem. Except for the biggest portals, most websites, for
example, focus on a particular company or organization, which serve as a
clear center of attention (e.g. the brand mission). Coverage in
traditional libraries can be very broad and serves a general cause, often
education or research. 

Standards and Tradition - IAs don't have the same (any?) standards as
librarians. Our work tends to be creative and original to arrive at a
customize solution. Librarians are far more concerned with mastering
existing systems, which can be strict, complex and carry decades of
history. This is not to say that librarianship cannot be creative, rather
that librarians generally don't create new systems (e.g.. taxonomies) from
scratch on a daily basis. 

Users and Use - I knew some of my patrons quite well on a personal
basis. As an IA, I try to infer user behavior from log files and marketing
research. Even the interviews and usability tests I conduct are with a
tiny fraction of the user base. 

IAs general work with anonymous users; librarians do not. Thus, the
motivation for user-centered information architecture. Which *is* to say
that most libraries are *not* user-centered. In fact, without someone
there to explain the system, most libraries are terrible from a user's
perspective. (There, I've said it). Librarians rely heavily on training
with something called bibliographic instruction.  This is a cop out and a
luxury IAs don't have. It's kinda like saying "if no one can understand
the menu points, just explain them in the 'help' section" for every
problem an IA would encounter. Particularly bad are the electronic
interfaces in libraries. 

Again, these are generalizations that speak to the *cores* of what I
believe both professions to be. Of course, there are exceptions and I'm
happy to hear opposing opinions.

Well, that was a long post from a lurker

Cheers,
Jim