[Sigia-l] IA system components - add to the list!

[Arno Reichenauer]

"Listera" wrote:

> It would help if you didn't invent words for me.

sorry for that, copy&paste-mistake. Nevertheless, I understood "why" as
asking why something like an underlying theory is necessary. so my answer is
still correct. Some kind of IA theory would 1) provide generalized knowledge
to draw solutions from, 2) help to communicate within the community and 3)
help to communicate and explain IA to others.

> The cartographic example I gave amply illustrates the fact that "perfect
> theories" handed down from above (the Church) often have little relevance
i=
> n
> the field (portolanos for seamen). In fact, the more "perfect" the
Church's
> theory/definition of the world got, the less relevant and useful it became
> for actual navigation and discovery.

Actually, I don't feel like I'd be acting from above. Rather, I asked for
different opinions on what each of you contributes to a working
website/intranet. And I never said it should be perfect, just a highest
common denominator, a kind of preliminary, organic hypothesis to work with
and to develop further, i.e. to come CLOSER to reality with every step, not
farer away as the Church became with its theory of the world in your
example. And besides, I am also working in the *field*...

> Well, worry no more. Jakob has already theorized and defined all you ever
> need to know about IA, navigation and usability. :-)

Hm I never realized that Jakob is an IA...or is Usability the same as IA?
(sorry for that..something forced my fingers to type it... ;-) But
seriously: where is your point against my argument that a theory would
provide generalized knowledge to draw solutions from?

> Again unlike others, I have no problems with people discussing *anything*
o=
> nthe the list. I hope you realize, though, the irony here: the more
"perfect" a
> definition of IA you divine, the less discussion there's left for
> discussion.

Again, this makes me wonder. I do not want to *divine* a *definition*. What
I did was a literature review of statements of many of the IA experts around
regarding what an Information Architect CAN contribute to a working
website/intranet. Then I provided the identified IA system components to the
community and asked for your opinions on it. That's actually DISCUSSING
things, not divining them.

Hm, I think I also don't get your point here. Hypothetically spoken, if we
would have a perfect (i.e., a commonly agreed upon) definition, then we
would have a commonly agreed upon definition. dot. And the only discussion
less would be the discussions about the definition. Would that be so bad? Or
what else would be missing? Even today, there are questions on the list that
are kindly referred to another list, because they are off topic. A
*definition* would only make explicit what's already existent today.

> This is a contrived example in the sense that a client sophisticated
enough
> to solicit an IA wouldn't usually be clueless enough to not know the
> difference between architecture and coding.

Of course it's a contrived example. Maybe it was too simplistic or too
extreme, but it should show that a settled understanding of IA would help to
communicate to clients and to explain IA to them. The more different
definitions are held by your competitors, the higher is the chance that your
client already adopted one of them and you have to explain why you think
differently; then you're in defense.

As in "real" architecture, nobody would expect an architect to put bricks
onto each other. That's because a quite settled understanding of
"architecture" has evolved. That helps both within the community and with
clients. And there is a generalized knowledge that allows the architect to
draw a solution for the mall he has to lay out from centuries of generalized
experiences with building houses.

Comes to me that THIS could be quite like putting bricks onto each other,
one after one. Bricks of generalized knowledge which in the end sum up to
the "building" IA...

Arno