[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 Christina Wodtke
>
> > Of course you did not. Saying 'people refute something' means they
> > have successfully done so.
>
> not necessarily,

The definition that you quoted below suggested otherwise.


> though sometimes:
>
>
> refute
> SYLLABICATION:re·fute
> PRONUNCIATION:AUDIO: r-fyt     KEY
> TRANSITIVE VERB:Inflected forms: re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing, re·futes
> 1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or
> proof: refute testimony.
> 2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the
> poll.  ETYMOLOGY:Latin reftre. See bhau- in Appendix I.
> OTHER FORMS:re·futa·bili·ty (r-fyt-bl-t, rfy-t-) -NOUN
> re·futa·ble (r-fyt-bl, rfy-t-) -ADJECTIVE
> re·futa·bly -ADVERB
> re·futer -NOUN
>
> so is anyone going to say anything on this list, or is it going to
> degrade into a semantics game?

But no one said anything like "rules are bad; principles are good" as
in the book "Information Architecture: Blueprints for the Web". ;-)


> Is this a list for pure theory, or are there a few working
> professionals around?

I believe the IA field is suffering from insufficient attention to
theory. People not paying attention to theory often run in circles.
The "circle" of equating information architecture with site components
such as labeling, navigation, searching, etc.


>
> In my experience, stringent highly structured methodologies
> breakdown and get thrown out,

A methodology that is "stringent, highly structured" does not mean it
cannot handle well a wide variety of problems. The key is in a
methodology's robustness.


> while highly flexible toolkits of skills and techniques are better
> suited to the wide variety of problems that come our way.
>
> FOR EXAMPLE when a client came to Carbon IQ loooong ago, we put
> together a strategy of research and design and testing. When they
> cut the budget in half, rather than throwing put the research and
> testing (as they suggested), we moved to a faster cheaper technique
> and were able to learn key information that shaped the end
> product. I don't think we could have done it if we had "a way" but I
> know we were able to do a good job because we had a toolkit.

It depends on what that "a way" is. It could have recommended moving
to a "faster cheaper technique".


Boniface