"I see information architecture as the intersection of three areas (imagine yet another three-circled Venn diagram):
users: (who they are, what their information-seeking behaviors and needs are)
content: (volume, formats, metadata, structure, organization)
context: (business model, business value, politics, culture, resources and resource constraints) "
, from oldest to newest:
What about tasks?
Posted by ? @ 07/24/2001 12:52 PM pst
~~~
Tasks?
Oh yeah, those things. I typically sweep them under the "content" rug. Maybe a better term would be stuff, including content and tasks.
But ultimately, though IA has something to say about tasks and there's a lot of overlap, I see tasks as fitting more squarely within interaction design.
Posted by Lou Rosenfeld @ 07/24/2001 01:47 PM pst
~~~
Why does it always have to be 3-circle venn diagrams????
http://www.eamesoffice.com/catalog/bigimage.html?image=diagram.jpg
;-)
Posted by Matt @ 07/24/2001 03:29 PM pst
~~~
everybody likes a venn diagram
Posted by christina @ 07/24/2001 05:10 PM pst
~~~
...because two circle Venns are boring and one circle Venns are even more boring.
And four circle Venns are just too danged hard to draw.
Posted by Lou Rosenfeld @ 07/24/2001 07:58 PM pst
~~~
I'm still very fond of the veen diagram
so Lou, are you saying intereaction design is *not* information architecture???
Posted by christina @ 07/24/2001 10:11 PM pst
~~~
Christina, thanks for asking. I am my own Venn diagram in this case as I would flow between IA, ID (strong on the interaction weak on the design), and application developer. Where these intersect is you will find me. I have thought the IA sets the foundation and parameters for ID to fill in and give life and provide the wrappers for the infomation applications, which conform to the findings of the contextual elements and user needs layed out by the IA.
Posted by vanderwal @ 07/25/2001 05:33 AM pst
~~~
What about the disappearing reappearing venn diagram? I've seen systems that do this :)
Posted by Lisa @ 07/25/2001 02:53 PM pst
~~~
huh?
Posted by christina @ 07/25/2001 11:06 PM pst
~~~
Regarding your veen diagram Christina, is the interface really the noose that hangs the user from the business model?
I would have said that the business model is the noose that hangs the interface from the user.
But I was drinking heavily last night so that may not make as much sense to anyone else as it does to me.
Posted by Paul Nattress @ 07/26/2001 12:56 AM pst
~~~
Nope, I don't think interaction design = information architecture. But explaining why will lead us into a discussion of definitions, and I don't have enough Gaviscon in the medicine cabinet right now to handle it...
Posted by Lou Rosenfeld @ 07/26/2001 03:34 AM pst
~~~
Lou, you suggest on your site that an IA should major in one area and minor in another. Is this saying that a web team would be better off having three IAs to cover all three areas?
Posted by Paul Nattress @ 07/26/2001 04:16 AM pst
~~~
If your organization has such deep pockets to hire three IAs, wonderful. But this might result in perhaps a little too much pigeonholing if you're not careful to organize your team properly.
Safer would be for each *individual* IA to have multiple competencies (majors and minors); we should all strive to be more well-rounded.
Posted by Lou Rosenfeld @ 07/26/2001 08:01 AM pst
~~~
Paul writes of Lou's stuff:
"an IA should major in one area and minor in another"
I think the point isn't that an IA *should* major in one area - it's that most IAs come into the field from a background in one of those areas...pre-IA jobs/education reflect either Users/Content/Context as a dominant theme...it isn't what should happen, it's just that it *is* what happens.
Going from there, exploring in the other areas makes you a better-rounded IA.
Posted by Jess @ 07/26/2001 10:44 AM pst
~~~
I like the idea of majoring and minoring. For myself I major in User and mine the context and content areas.
Hmmm, I wonder what most IAs major in?
Posted by Dennis Schleicher @ 08/01/2001 05:00 AM pst
~~~
"I wonder what most IAs major in?"
Let's spill the beans - I major in content.
Posted by Paul Nattress @ 08/02/2001 12:59 AM pst
~~~
It's funny, but for all the struggle to define a discipline around information architecture and even usability (i.e. the customer experience ruse), it seems to me we must ALL major in business whether we like it or not. Everything else is a minor. It's why I laugh to myself sometimes when I'm reading UTEST and people start trying to sound like we're the ultimate humanitarians looking out for the USER in this otherwise inhumane environment. If we're not looking out first and foremost for the business goals of the client, we can forget everything else. If we were humanitarians, we'd be filling in the gaps in non-profit staffing and trying to get all the homeless people off the street -- not trying to make it easier for the poor web users (who we all know are mostly affluent and well-educated) to buy something online.
By the way, as far as education, I majored in English and then minored in secretarial skills once I left grad school and couldn't get a job. That's how *I* ended up being an IA. ;)
Posted by Kelli Covey @ 08/05/2001 12:40 PM pst
~~~
Funny that 'technology' didn't make the venn diagram. For me, IA becomes necessary when large amounts of information collide with technology. Before the web, the biggest volumes we exchanged were 650MB hard drives, and there wasn't much IA work, not enough to drive a new discipline. The Internet is what sparked it all.
Perhaps technology is lumped under 'context', but then that category is getting rather ambiguous, no?
Posted by victor @ 08/08/2001 11:30 AM pst
~~~
Isn't IA about using your knowledge of your disciplines to fit the required information into the technology currently available?
Posted by Paul Nattress @ 08/09/2001 04:51 AM pst
~~~
my venn has always included technology...
Posted by christina @ 08/09/2001 08:26 AM pst
~~~
