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

[Arno Reichenauer]

"Boniface Lau" wrote:

> I was not referring to any components. Different systems have
> different components.

See, why don't you get a *little* more concrete? Examples? With answers like
these, it seems like you just don't want to share your knowledge.

> ISTM, you were not sure of what you
> were talking about.

Boniface, I am slooowly getting tired of this kind of discussion. Remember
what this thread is called? "IA system components - ADD TO THE LIST!" I
think I stated it four or five times now that I DON'T HAVE A FIXED PICTURE
OF WHAT IS INSIDE AN IA SYSTEM YET. That't why I asked the members of the
list for feedback on it. Got it now?

And please, don't disrupt citations. The complete citation of my statement
read

> > No. Some components of a web site are delivered by IAs, some are
> > delivered by other professions. The components that are delivered by
> > IAs are one part of an IA system, as I explained above.
> > Another one might be all the non-artifacts
> > like maintenance process descriptions etc. And there might be even
> > more. But they all somehow contribute to the development/maintenance
> > of a website/intranet. Once more, I have no fixed picture about that
> > yet.

This is, in one of my earlier posts I gave my preliminary view on what is
included in an IA system, and in this cited later post I then showed what
MIGHT ALSO be included, to further specify the meaning of the term IA
system. Of course I learned during the discussion about the different
viewpoints, and to enable people to give feedback on it, I tried to show
what could also be a part of it to start off comments. AND I DON'T HAVE A
FIXED PICTURE OF WHAT IS INSIDE AN IA SYSTEM YET. (hope excessive repetition
helps ;-)

> When people do not know the meaning of IA (Information Architecture),
> how will they know they have developed an "IA system" and an "IA
> process"?

See, in my view, there is no one single definition of the term IA, because
it is used to describe different, if also related things. For example a
process or the respective outcome. Or the discipline. Or a skill. Just like
the term "architecture" can describe at least both a discipline and a system
(the part of a building). There is no sense in searching for *the*
definition of IA; no single defintion can cover all aspects.

> People who know what they are talking about often found it offensive
> that others project what they want to see. It is like putting words
> into others' mouth. I try not to do that.

That's not putting words into each other's mouth but a very effective and
efficient method when it comes to understanding another one's viewpoint, a
technique that in psychology is called re-learning. It goes something like
this: Speaker A states his opinion. Then Speaker B rephrases what he
understood to be the key points of Speaker A's opinion. Then Speaker A can
clarify in case Speaker B understood something wrong. As soon as Speaker A
is fine with Speaker B's rephrasing, Speaker B can start to state his
respone on that (now well understood) opinion.

Otherwise, if you only state what you DON'T understand, there is no chance
of re-using the already gained understanding, and a chance for increasing
the amount of understanding is missed. And it's very boring to always start
off from the same point for Speaker A. In our discussion, I couldn't go like
"ok, now this and that is clear for him/her, and with that basis, I can now
clarify what is still ambigous". Instead, I always had to think of new ways
to describe the same information ("Puuh how else could I describe it?").
That's why I appreciated Eric's rephrasing of what he understood my
statement was about, because it really helped to advance the discussion.

If people find that offensive, I guess it's rather because they are very
convinced of their view and not ready for discussion and differing
viewpoints.

> As to what you called criticism, people come from a wide variety of
> backgrounds and are trying to understand each other's perspective.
> Thus, they seek clarification on what seems to be ambiguous.

Great, if you are trying to understand me. But Boniface, I'm sorry I still
have the feeling that it's more important to you to find possible weaknesses
of my statements than to understand what I'm trying to say. Don't get me
wrong, I have no problem with discussions, as tough as they may get. I enjoy
that. But it seems important to me that there is first understanding, then
objecting. Not the other way around.

So, if you really are interested in understanding my point, it might be a
good idea that you tell me what you have understood so far before we go on
with clarifying, so I know what I can use as a basis for that. Because I
don't want to reformulate exactly the same thing over and over again. If you
don't want to, I think we should stop here.

> Some people look at those clarification requests as criticism. Others
> look at the requests as ways of deepening their own understanding of
> what they are talking about. It depends on whether people adopt the
> perspective of defense or learning. The choice is yours.

True.
And if you choose not to defend, then it should be easy to first gain
understanding, then start objecting ;-)

Arno