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

[Boniface Lau]

> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
> Behalf Of 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.

Note the use of "i.e." in what Arno wrote:

> >> for defining IA methodology, i.e. the process you have to go
> >> through to obtain these contributions?

When you use "i.e." after a term you give an explanation of that
term. So, Arno was _explaining_ to us that "IA methodology" means "the
process you have to go through to obtain these contributions".

That is a misunderstanding of "IA methodology".


[...]
> ps: counter to the whole idea of "grand unified methodologies",

A grand unified methodology is like a bible. Wise people know when to
use it and when to leave it behind.


> I am actually partial to the notion of a toolbox of techniques and
> understandings.

Toolbox has its place. So does a grand unified methodology. The key is
in knowing when to use what.


> Christina W. writes about this idea in Blueprints, refuting in the
> process the underlying assumption that a "methodology" is actually
> useful and valuable.

Really? Could you tell us how she did that? How about including some
quotes?


Boniface