[Sigia-l] Rant about bad IA practice.

[Stewart Dean]

----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 22:17:05 +1100
> From: alexander.johannesen at gmail.com
> To: stew8dean at hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Rant about bad IA practice.
> CC: sigia-l at asis.org
> 
> On 11/3/06, Stewart Dean <stew8dean at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I hope it illstrates why I don't think you make a strong case for
> > card sorting as a 'good way to do most website'.
> 
> As I've never claimed such a thing, why would you expect me to build a
> strong case for that?

You claim not to able to create websites without it. I read that to mean you feel card sorting is a good way to do most websites, as in a central tool in the process.


> > Maybe what you are doing isnt realy card sorting as I and
> > others know it.
> 
> Donna Maurer is currently writing a whole book on card sorting, so
> maybe there is more to card sorting than we both may think.

I've been following that and have exchanged views breifly before.


> > Perhaps  it would be helpful if you said how you go about using
> > card sorting rather than what you use it for.
> 
> I'm sure that's true, but that wasn't really why I wrote to protest
> your general butching of card sorting as a best pratice.

So do you have a point then?  I'm saying card sorting is a back up process for websites and the majority of sites don't need it as there are better ways to do it, namely direct testing via paper or electronic prototypes, for example. So if you disagree what is the alternative?  if you don't have one then I can't see how you can protest.


>  You've
> explained privately that you really meant to attack "card sorting as
> we know it when doing navigation on websites", although in my book
> even that is terribly vague, and often even wrong.

I did go into more detail on several occasions, including in my original rant.  Card sorting for the creation of navigation on the majority of card sorting is not that useful as it takes the navigation out of the context of the site it's being used on and turns it into a subjective 'do you like this word' type of exercies.  To make it valid you have to reintroduce context - that is explain what those words lead and what lies underneath. Now this may appear to be the wrong way around and it is, but otherwise you're in danger of it being about arbitary word association and not about the funcational navigation of a website.  Words out of context become data, not information.  The other elements on a page often tell you more about the naigation then the main naigation does.  Incidently the useage of phrases I found to be effective (space allowing) in past exercises as they are less vauge than single word titles. 

> To iterate; your thread was an attack on best practices,  with
> generalised examples within. 


Only if you assume what you are doing is best practice, which obviously I don't.  It was an attack on BAD practice, that is using what I feel are methods that are overused and not aa effective as more direct processes such as paper prototyping.   in short a good IA will be able to organised and label most types of information without card sorting and then be able to test that with real users in context.  I know that's how others do it and what I consider to be good practice.  I can see where card sorting can help as a communication tool if you have content experts but even then talking about taxonomies with a white board can solve that a bit more directly. 


>. I'm more than happy to dig into specifics
> of card sorting and how I do it in such a thread.

Such what a thread.  You want more specifics - I think you're missing the meaning of best practice.  Best practice refers to an approach you can apply to most projects. Given minimial information how do you proceed?  So in a general project when do you feel card sorting should be used - how do you use it with, how do you prep up the card sorting and how to you impliment the outcome?  

I'm deeply pragmatic in my approach and need to see how A leads to B to use A. I have seen experts get to C from A using eye tracking so feel it's invalid. I can have also seen this happen with card sorting where, as the context of the labels has changed, the arbitary decisions of the sorters are not applicable to the final solution, which will change during the design process anyway!

So if you feel I'm wrong I'm after you saying why rather than complaining about things with no alternative.  

Stewart Dean