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

[Arno Reichenauer]

"Boniface Lau" wrote:

>How about the architecture itself? Creating/maintaining a non-trivial
>interactive system without paying attention to its architecture will
>cause the system to deteriorate or even collapse. Is system
>architecture a very down-to-earth thing? I would think so. In fact,
>non-attention to the architecture will likely bring the system
>crushing down to earth.

Ok, does that mean you see "system architecture" inside IA? Is that the
"system architecture" that my IT colleagues talk about when they implement a
portal? What do you describe with that term?

>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.

Nope, that's not it. Maybe I should have been more precise in my wording. A
very important distinction in my view is between IA SYSTEM and IA PROCESS.
In my terms, "IA system" describes this sum of web site components that come
from IA (i.e., navigation structure plus labels plus plus...no end yet), and
IA process is actually what you have to do to get to such an IA system. If
you look at my response to Eric, you can also see that I don't follow the
idea to built up a fixed methodology which says, do this with that amount of
resources, then do that..etc. Rather, I talk about a process framework which
describes the process on a high level and the interconnections between the
development of single components (e.g., navigation, labels and metadata),
and which can also include a number of methods for the development of each
single IA system component, to be able to adjust to specific needs of the
project at hand.

>> The definition of IA itself would then be just a collateral result
>> of this.
>
>I think you meant collective when you said collateral. But the
>collective result of your so called "IA methodology" is a web site,
>not an information architecture.

Again no. I really meant collateral, meaning "accompanying as secondary or
subordinate" It should point out that after we'd agree on what parts of a
web site we CAN deliver, we could deduce what an IA process CAN cover and
what the "maximum" process covers (i.e., the process that covers all the
possible deliverables). And then the definition of IA as a process would be
obvious. And the definition of IA as a system also.

>Unfortunately, many people still equate site components (navigation,
>searching, labeling, etc.) with information architecture. That reminds
>me of a magic trick. Audience see a handkerchief that seems to be
>covering something. They noticed the protruding corners. But as they
>try to grab on to a corner, the handkerchief collapsed and the
>audience found nothing but the handkerchief. Whatever beneath has
>escaped.
>
>Information architecture influences site components like the
>"protruding corners". But equating site components with information
>architecture will miss the real information architecture.

Hm that's intersting, if also unspecific and a little bit mystical. (Has to
do with different definitions of IA we two have in mind, hasn't it? ;-). I
already stated my understanding of IA system and process. Maybe you could
specify what you see additional to it?

Arno