[Sigia-l] Becoming an IA or UXA

[Peter Boersma]

Chris Chandler asked:
> Are you saying that you think "library science stuff" is
> equivalent to "little ia?" I don't think that's what you meant,
> but I have to ask.

Yes and no :-)

The original[1] distinction between little ia and Big IA was about the
*role* an expert would play: "the little information architect may focus
solely on bottom-up tasks such as the definition of metadata fields and
controlled vocabularies" versus "the Big Information Architect may play the
role of 'an orchestra conductor or film director, conceiving a vision and
moving the team forward'". The *role* of little ia should not (or: can not)
be compared to the *field* of library science.

However, implicitly the distinction also classifies little ia activities and
deliverables (metadata, thesauri/controlled vocabularies, search systems) as
the core of our field (thank you Gunnar) and these happen to be activities
and deliverables that stem from the "library science stuff" ("field" would
have been a better term).

Although the library science field may have given us the activities and
deliverables of the core of our field, that doesn't mean that library
scientists cannot play the Big IA role, nor that user experience consultants
should stay away from metadata and thesauri.

> Personally, I dislike the "little IA" designation. There are not
> that many people who would be happy having their work
> called "little."

Complaints should be directed at the Good Peter :-)

[1] The first time I read about this distinction was in Peter Morville's
column "Big Architect, Little Architect" on:
http://argus-acia.com/strange_connections/strange004.html

The Ugly Peter
--
Peter Boersma, Senior Information Architect, EzGov Europe
Wibautstraat 3-5, Amsterdam, 1091 GH, The Netherlands
Tel.: +31(0)20 5961216 / Fax: +31(0)20 5961511 / Mob: +31(0)6 15072747
mailto:peter.boersma at ezgov.com / http://www.europe.ezgov.com