[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 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? 

No, IA influences the portal's system architecture.


> Is that the "system architecture" that my IT colleagues talk about
> when they implement a portal? 

I was not there with your IT colleagues. You better ask them.


> What do you describe with that term?

A system architecture is about the components within a system and
how they should be connected.


> 
> >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. 

Mind you, you yourself earlier wrote:

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

That means IA methodology is "the process you have to go through to
obtain these contributions".


> 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),

Mind you, a collection of disconnected components is NOT a system. But
when the web site components are connected, they form what we call a
web site. Are you saying that a web site is an IA System?


> 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"

The definition of IA is "secondary or subordinate" to an IA
methodology? I found that hard to believe. Thus, I thought you meant
"collective".


> 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.

ISTM what you've described is a group of people not knowing what they
are supposed to develop. But they know the name of what is being asked
for. It is called IA. So they charge ahead without agreeing on what IA
means. In the end, they will simply call the whatever result IA.


Boniface