[Sigia-l] first principals

[Marianne K Sweeny]

Good Morning,

Ahhh another tantalizing shiny conversational bauble has drawn me out of my lurking cave. 

Here is what I believe:
We will never "define" information architecture. This lingering conversational thread which dissipates only to rise again like one of those ubiquitous vampires on "Buffy" will never go away. This is because everyone has their own contextualized version of what they do or write about when they do or write about Information Architecture. Is there a reason that we cannot agree to disagree and move on to less nebulous, less aggravating, less open to mis-understanding conversations that will further, not mire, forward progress?

While I appreciate Christina's attempt to clarify who, what, and how information architecture is, like Jesse below, I have serious issues with some of what is written on those clay tablets from the mount. Again, can't we agree to disagree and move on. The list in #10 is woefully under represented by valued contributors to the field of information architecture and design before most of us where through with the senior prom.

Information architecture is being defined in graduate school all over the country. Look at the catalogue for any LIS or IS program worth its salt and you'll find IA in there. If a segment of the community feels a need for boundaries and labels, perhaps they should form a task force, loop in the academics, and go from there. Shoot us a mail when it is decided.

Finally, on the subject of findability. I believe that there is no such thing. Findability, as presented, would seem to be a inherent quality of information that it cannot possess. Romedi Passini introduced the concept of Wayfinding which is a inherent quality possessed by the user and is the means by which the user makes their way to a destination. See, we're not that far from the physical construct of architecture after all.

Now, back to the practice at hand.



Message: 11
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:49:47 -0800
From: Jesse James Garrett <jjg at jjg.net>
To: sigia-l at asis.org
Subject: Re: first principals (was Re: [Sigia-l] moving beyond first principles:  how?

Hi everybody -- I'm back from a week of travel with limited e-mail access and catching up.

Christina Wodtke wrote:
> Here is a straw man for you

Great, let me find a match...

> 1. Information Architecture is primarily concerned with Information 
> Retrieval.

Honestly, sometimes I think you say this stuff just to get a rise out of me. You're too smart to actually believe this.

> 2. Information Architecture cannot be done effectively without and 
> understanding of business and user needs.

Sure.

> 3. Just because you are an information architect doesn't mean 
> everything you do is information architecture. 4. Just because you 
> aren't an information architect doesn't mean what you are doing isn't 
> information architecture.

Yes, absolutely, to both.

> 5. Every site, moreover every digital content collection has an 
> information architecture. It's possible non-digital and non-content 
> spaces may also have one.

My advocacy for the origins of IA in non-digital content is long standing and well documented. Not sure how you can have IA without information, which is what "non-content spaces" means to me.

> 6. There is no such thing as a classification inherent in the 
> content-- classification comes form context, including culture.

This seems weirdly specific -- not all IA work is classification work.

> 7. There is no such thing as an unbiased IA. But we have to try 
> anyhow.

There's been a long thread on this point, and I'll just chime in to say that an unbiased IA is rarely the goal of my work. It's always a question of which biases to apply in which proportions.

> 8. Information wants to be free, but people like to be paid.

Cute, but I don't really know what it means.

> 9. A profession that values naming and labeling will continually have 
> semantic arguments.

I'd hope that a *mature* profession would be comfortable with a degree of ambiguity about itself.

> 10. IA's parents include Lou Rosenfeld, Peter Morville, Clement Mok, 
> Edward Tufte, Drew Miller, and Richard Saul Wurman. You have to read 
> the polar bear, and preferably the 2nd edition.

I'd rather not have a canon, thanks. I say take what you find valuable and leave the rest. Wurman, for example, is damned interesting stuff that has virtually no application to the problems I am asked to solve.

> 11. You have to value search and browse and their relationship, and 
> moreover be able to design for that relationship.

Again, true but weirdly specific.

> 12. There is always more than one way to organize a group of anything, 
> but there is always one best way given a unique content set, unique 
> user base and unique business needs.

Not sure I buy this one. I don't have a strong sense that there is One Right Answer to any given IA problem.

> 13. IA is an aspect of design.

No. IA and design are both areas of creative problem solving. Design does not encompass all forms of applied creativity.

> 14. IA can be taught, but good instincts are invaluable. Honed with 
> experience, they are priceless.

I have some slight reservations about the "IA can be taught" part -- IA can certainly be *learned*, but perhaps not from a teacher -- but the point about instinct is right on.