[Sigia-l] Serious Discussion of IA Research?

[Eric Scheid]

On 5/12/04 12:58 PM, "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau at compuserve.com> wrote:
>>> For a field known as Information Architecture, what is more basic
>>> then distinguishing information from data. After all, that field
>>> has long been insisting that information is not data.
>> 
>> has it really?
> 
> Are you back-pedalling? "Oh, we didn't really insist that information
> is not data. Thus, it is okay for Information Architects not being
> able to tell information from data."

I'm not back-pedalling, because I haven't been insisting that any
distinction is crucial. It's you who is pushing that point.

>> I posit that the difference just hasn't been relevant for a great
>> deal of the IA discussions.
> 
> As you yourself have observed, unless being asked what information is,
> IAs didn't care to distinguish information from data.

So who's back-pedalling now? Here's what you said earlier:

    > After all, that field [IA] has long been insisting that
    > information is not data.

Meanwhile ...

> But walking the talk without the required skills to meaningfully distinguish
> information from data makes IAs hair-splitters.

You might have a point regarding walking the talk, but you're using the
wrong word to describe it. Hair-splitting is after all the act of over-
attention to unimportant details and fine distinctions, especially in an
argument, and giving undue significance to fine distinctions and details.

As an IA, I care about many things, but distinguishing one pile of stuff
from another pile of stuff in some manner which is simply not relevant to
the audience or other stakeholders is, well, splitting hairs and I don't
want to do that. For someone to then come along and insist that I do make
that distinction, even calling upon academic definitions and such ... then
they are the one splitting hairs.

e.