[Sigia-l] The 3 Factors of I/A

[Richard_Dalton at Vanguard.com]

> Andrew McNaughton wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 Richard_Dalton at Vanguard.com wrote:
> > Andrew McNaughton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 Richard_Dalton at Vanguard.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd like to suggest (and discuss) that an Information Architecture 
is
> > > > made up of 3 factors:
> > > >
> > > >    - Similarity of Content (group things based on their 
attributes,
> > > >        "put apples with apples")
> > > >    - User Tasks (group things based on how they're used, "put dip 
&
> > > >        salsa with the chips")
> > > >    - Business Goals (group things to influence a user, "put candy 
&
> > > >        magazines near the checkouts")
> > > >
> > > > It's the blend of these 3 factors (some having more weight than
> > > > others) that comprises an effective architecture.
> > >
> > > Personally I see the Information Architeture as being a model of the
> > > structure of the site's content.
> > >
> > > The factors you give are things that I would think of as informing 
and
> > > perhaps driving the selection of an appropriate architectural model, 
but
> > > not as being part of the architecture itself.
> >
> > I'm not quite understanding your distinction between 'an appropriate
> > architectural model' and 'the architecture itself' - could you expand 
on
> > that a little?
>
> The only distinction that I'm making there is between possible
> architectures and a particular architecture.  That's not the important
> distinction I'm making.
>
> What I'm saying is that the 'factors' you identify are not things I see 
as
> being part of the architecture, but rather kinds of goals that lead to 
the
> selection of the architecture.
>
> What you've written is analogous to saying that a house's architecture
> consists of things like putting two doors between the kitchen and
> bathroom, providing entrances and light to each room, and keeping the
> budget reasonable.  Those things certainly shape the design, but the
> architecture is rather closer to the plans provided for the builder.
>
> Curiously I don't find it much easier to express what 'the architecture'
> is in building terms than I do with Information Architecture.

Well ... to continue to use the house architecture analogy, what I was 
trying to say was that in any given organization of "things" (rooms in 
this example) there are different factors that drive placement/grouping. 
In the house architecture example the 2 factors mainly at play are Content 
Similarly and User Task, thus:

 - The pantry is almost always next to the kitchen.
    ... is this because of Content Similarity (size of room, color of 
room,
        number of lights, number of doors, etc) or because of User Task 
(to
        make a meal you need both)?

 - There is usually a bathroom upstairs and downstairs.
    ... is this because of Content Similarity (size of room, color of 
room,
        both have a toilet and washbasin, etc) or because of User Task 
(you
        can need a bathroom at any time)?

In fact, house (and most building architectures) are driven primarily by 
User Task, in the above examples the bathrooms are not all grouped 
together even though they have a lot of similar 'attributes'.

On the web, however, (and on these mailing lists) i've seen a lot of 
examples and disscusion about grouping based on Content Similarity and not 
much based on grouping by User Task and I wondered if anyone else was 
doing some User Task driven work?

 - Richard Dalton