[Sigia-l] So, how did you become a [Information Architect|UsabilityEngineer|Interface Designer|etc.]?

[Ted Han]

On 6/26/05, Peter Boersma <peter at peterboersma.com> wrote:
> Ted Han wrote:
> > [..]  What appeals to me about IA is that it is a
> > holistic enterprise.
> 
> That sounds like you're talking about Big IA(*). Are you?

Well, i'm not entirely sure.  The Big IA that the BEEP and Morville
article describe sound to me like management.  And little IA sounds to
me like the tasks that one must accomplish to do IA work.  What i mean
is approaching tasks and projects with the notion that product
creation requires careful thought about all the layers of creation and
usage (i guess one could say, breaking the barriers of modular
design/creation which have arisen out of complacency or convenience). 
I apologize for the extremely cumbersome way i've put this, i haven't
really thought of a good way to communicate what i mean on this (which
is in part why i hang out on the list and try to osmose as much as i
can ;) )  Anyway, this outlook i think is important for everyone in
the creation process to have, not just the project lead or whoever
(although granted, this outlook may not direct -every- part of the
creation process, for example, users typically don't care what coding
conventions a software developer uses :P ).

> That could be interpreted as "if I want to be a surgeon, I'll just pick up a
> knife and call it surgery". That's dangerous.
> Now, most IA isn't really about life-or-death situations, but if your bad IA
> decision makes a lot of people pay too much tax (or too little for that
> matter), or worse, deliver the wrong amount of medicine, a lot of people can
> get into trouble.

Oh, i agree, to me an important part of common sense is knowing when
you are out of your depth.  Avoiding giving advice on subjects i'm not
qualified to give advice on is one of those little paranoias i have.

> > So i would surmise that i could stick to the stuff that i
> > do now and delve just as heavily into the world of IA as i could
> > anywhere else.
> 
> Now you're talking. There's plenty to learn!
> Start with Guerrilla IA(**), the shallow IA areas that are also useful (and
> taught) in other fields. If you find an area you like, feel free to delve
> into it.

Well thats the plan anyway! :)

> >  However, the reason why i think the title/field
> > matters, is that as an IA or whatever you can put that sort of
> > holistic perspective at the front of what you're focusing on, where as
> > if i'm simply just a web developer, or linguist, or webmaster, people
> > make different assumptions about what it is that i do, and what it is
> > that should be expected from me.
> 
> In that case I strongly suggest you stick with your title first, then expand
> your knowledge, then *slowly* expand your responsibilities and only then
> consider changing your jobtitle into "IA or whatever".

Thanks for the advice :)

Hmm, again to try and douse the nomenclature fire that seems to have
spontaniously arisen, i'm not out hunting for a job title.  As i
indicated to Ziya there are probably benefits to being called an IA or
UIE or whatever, but what i'm more interested in is what it takes to
be and IA or do IA, because IA (or at least the notion i have of it
right now) seems like an important thing to consider in the sorts of
fields i am interested in.

Thanks again,

-T