[Sigia-l] Pick a theory (was 'IA and Semiotics')

[Ruth Kaufman]

Great discussion. 

  > From: Chris Fox: I honestly
   >  do see possibilities for all of the above to inform one's practice as an
   >  IA in some way, as well as semiotics and semiology. But that's where the
   >  point really comes...as practice.
   >  
   >  To what extent would any concept borrowed from of these theories change
   >  a design decision I made about what goes where in a digital environment,
   >  or how it's done, or how users interact? Let's imagine statements in the
   >  form of "When theorist X makes statement Y, I applied the inference X'
   >  to design problem Z in the following way." Then let's imagine validating
   >  those statements by deploying the designs in the contexts where they are
   >  used, and then observing how they operate within those contexts. In my
   >  opinion, that would be the method by which we could explore a
   >  theoretically informed IA.


I agree that theory is most valuable (at least in a capitalist society :-)) when it is translated into practice, but as Dave Collins points out:

"personally I feel sits on
shaky ground, because I've learned it piecemeal, not as pieces that fit
into a larger puzzle. It is difficult for me see the larger picture in
the context of well-established knowledge that's gone before me. "

In other words, practical experience without a theoretical framework is a short rope in an evolving discipline. This is exactly why I went to grad school for media studies. I had been working on web projects for about 6 years and realized I knew next to nothing about media. How was I going to spot trends if I knew no history? How was I going to apply the skills I did have to the evolution of the web? How was I going to be able to tell if some web widget or capability was innovative, tried and true, tried and failed miserably ...and if so, why... ? 

I'm just using my own lack of knowledge and confidence as an example. The point is that as we develop best practices in our discipline and in our organizations, we know they have to be repeatable (by definition) and that they have to be presented in some larger framework. We don't necessarily have to pick single a theory or paradigm to spring from -- we don't even have to make reference to them by name. But to have them handy expands our vocabulary and the range of possibilities for creative problem solving. I think it would be great to have a practical guide to philosophy for information architects on hand. Hey, anybody want to write a book?

 
   >  Unless...In the same way that architecture "proper" starting in the late
   >  70s allowed for the possibility of purely theoretical architecture,
   >  would anyone ever carry out information architecture specifically NOT
   >  for the purpose of it being implemented and used? But what would that
   >  mean?

I'm not exactly sure, but anecdotally, I was asked to write a strategy document about how to develop and deploy best practices as standards. Maybe the point is (since I'm just feeling this out...) that yes, there is relevance to pure theory because somewhere down the line, someone else will make practical sense of it. Speaking of time-honored Jewish philosophy, there's an adage that roughly translates to -- It's not upon you to finish the work. 


Cheers,
Ruth