[Sigia-l] The End of Big IA (was IA research?)

[Thomas Vander Wal]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 08:19:31 -0500, Dan Saffer <dan at odannyboy.com> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 21, 2004, at 8:38 PM, Thomas Vander Wal wrote:
> 
> > The whole design field, of which IA is only a part, is
> > getting more and more splintered.
> 
> Splintered, or merely specialized? Or, dare I say it, correctly sorted
> into disciplines where deeper knowledge can be explored? Could this be
> the end of big IA (which as a term was pretty hubris-filled, as it
> seemed like other design fields were contained within the IA
> discipline)?

I think it is splintered rather than specialized, mostly because
specialization requires a whole from which to specialize.  This whole
has not really happened (agreed that UXNet could resolve some of this,
but AIGA's Experience Design seems lacking breath and nearly dead
unfortunately).  There really needs to be a central digital design org
that embraces the specialization and also provides easy crosswalks
from one to the next so research and best practices can emerge more
visably.

> > These differentiations are breaking the discussions,
> > adding different terminology for the same subjects that things split.
> > Clients are confused, innovation is trapped in the splinters, great
> > ideas are compartmentalized, and everybody is suffering.
> 
> One reason clients are confused is because we called everything IA,
> whether it had anything to do with the structure and display of
> information/content or not.

I only use IA in the narrow context as it had overstepped its bounds
early on.  The interaction design elements and IA overlap on user
flows. Clients try to sort out what is being presented from various
developers/designers and at a high level seem to disagree what needs
to be done as they invoke different terms.  Once the detials emerge
the client sees that the interaction design and information
architecture components of a proposal overlap and the tasks are nearly
identical for some things.  The parts that overlap and what one firm
does and does not do under the terms IA, interaction design,
usability, information design, HCI, CHI, Human Factors, etc. is
enormously confusing.  Part of what I have been doing the past year or
two is working with companies and managers and helping them sort out
the mess so that they can make some sense of what is being offered and
what they actually need and can afford.

> And while I agree isolationism rarely breeds innovation (innovation
> typically being the product of the juxtaposition), it would seem that
> UX Net or AIGA's Experience Design would be the logical place to
> explore connections between disciplines, while the specialized groups
> explore their subject areas. Does anyone really feel we've learned
> everything about IA, IxD, Communication Design, HCI, etc?

We have definately not learned everything, but we have run into some
dead ends that do not have affordances for the future (and is some
cases models are breaking now).  Peter Morville's Findability has
really helped the IA profession grow as it provides a nice opening to
expose problems in structures and interfaces, but there is much
farther to go with IA and all other disciplines.  As above, we have a
serious need for a central organization that acts like a parent to
this still emerging mass of skills, crafts, resources, and
professions.  There is a need for specialization and a lot more
research as well as sharing lessons learned.  These take time and time
will come to amass the information and put it into a solid order that
works across disciplines   The conversations need to exist across
disciplines inorder for us to actually learn and grow.

All the best,
Thomas

www.vanderwal.net