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

[Dan Saffer]

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)?

> The last couple of years have seem
> splinter professional groups pop-up, increasingly with the same folks
> on the boards.

Indeed.

> 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.

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?

>  IA is only a slice in a
> larger design world, see Peter Boersma's "Model-T"
> (http://www.peterboersma.com/blog/2004/11/t-model-big-ia-is-now- 
> ux.html)
> for a clearer idea how things fit together.

This is a long-overdue model.


Dan Saffer
M. Design Candidate, Interaction Design
Carnegie Mellon University
http://www.odannyboy.com