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

[Eric Scheid]

On 15/3/03 12:10 PM, "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau at compuserve.com> wrote:
>> Why can’t we first of all just collect what each one of us is
>> contributing to a working website or intranet and then use the sum
>> of it as a starting point not for defining IA but for defining IA
>> methodology, i.e. the process you have to go through to obtain these
>> contributions?
> 
> If I understand you correctly, what you call "IA methodology" is
> really a process for drawing information architects' contributions
> into the development of various web site components. It is a misnomer
> to call that IA methodology.

No, you didn't understand correctly. He's not saying that the sum of
components == a methodology, he's saying the sum of components is just grist
for the mill, the process, of *developing* a methodology. I'd expect part of
the process of developing that methodology would be an examination of the
relevance and value of each submitted component, and also an analysis of
dependencies and inherent flows so as to ascertain where there are gaps in
the corpus (ie. components that were not submitted).

> The collective result [...] is a web site, not an information architecture.

A difference in interpretation could be because I'm also not limiting
"contributions" to meaning "artifact present in the final product". Maybe
Arno was only thinking of the latter (or maybe not - Arno?), but that
original position is inconsequential: if we were to use the wider meaning,
in the process, could we develop a methodology?

e.

ps: counter to the whole idea of "grand unified methodologies", I am
actually partial to the notion of a toolbox of techniques and
understandings. Christina W. writes about this idea in Blueprints, refuting
in the process the underlying assumption that a "methodology" is actually
useful and valuable.