Edited by author 07-12-2001 04:41 PM
In an interview with Design Matters, the newsletter of the STC Information Design special interest group, Richard Saul Wurman said that information architecture was the merging of three fields: technology, graphic design, and writing/journalism. This reflects his vision, published in 1996 in Information Architecture, that the information architect is "the individual who organizes the patterns in data, making the complex clear."

In a subsequent issue, Lou Rosenfeld spoke of the influence of the Internet and the WWW on the field: "... Wurman's definition of information architecture doesn't really scale well in the age of more complex information systems like web sites. Like any designer, Wurman's definition is shaped by his contemporary medium--print."

Are there two information architectures? One influenced by presentation and one influenced by structure? Is the presentation-based IA better served by the name "information design?" Does the medium really matter? Is print IA/ID different from web-based IA/ID in meaningful ways?

You can read some very interesting comments. Or you can let us know what you think...

Ah, come on, I can see you checking it out :). Jump in, the water's fine!

Anyways, as evidenced by the fact that I actually compiled this
issue, I feel like there is some kind of fundamental difference, somewhere. If it is beween IA and ID, that is one thing. But I'm reasonably intrigued by folks, like Whitney Quesenbery, who say that perhaps the issue isn't the medium, but the application.

I'm also fascinated by the concept of the information designer as director (which seems to appear in an IA fashion on the SIGIA list regularly). I really, really like the idea that the ID or IA or whatever may in fact be the generalist who helps assist in the collaboration between other, more focused groups.

For example, consider the Venn diagram Christina Wodtke put up on Elegant Hack. This is exactly the issue that my old firm was concerned with: doing the best design you can given business, human, and technology constraints.

You cannot do away with the specialist. Sometimes, a project absolutely, positively requires someone with graphic design expertise. Or heavy-duty backend database programming expertise. Or whatever. And, you'll still need a real "manager" type (the producer in my ID/film analogy).

But there needs to be someone relatively conversant in all of these to help preserve the vision. The director, if you will. Maybe that's the "big" IA or ID (as opposed to the "little" IA or ID who is more concerned with specialist issues related to structure or presentation, respectively.

BTW, I really liked what Jesse James Garrett had to say. But then, I am one of those annoying folks interested in these "academic and pointless" discussions :).

Lots of bright minds talking about interesting stuff :)

I'm tremendously reluctant to embrace any term as an umbrella for what we all do unless it includes people. ID and IA are both fundamentally and inextricably info-centric at a basic semantic level. Explanation of IA and ID invariably requires the addition of people-centric language to qualify the fact that "oh yes, we deal with people, too". Nothing intrinsic in the terms themselves promotes a user-centered approach. You may consider that architects and designers both deal with people and meeting their needs. True, but we've qualified ourselves out of that by adding "Information" - we become architects and designers of information, instead of creators of solutions that meet real peoples' needs and allow them to achieve their goals.

Now I know that IAs and IDs really are user-centric. It's just that the terms themselves are decidedly not.

"User Experience" is something I'm more comfortable with. Some people have mentioned experience design, in other forums experience architecture has been talked about. George Olsen just posted his much longer thoughts on the subject here. I'm not sure about these either, but at least we're talking about people (there's considerable conceit thinking we can design experience - conceit and control and hubris - perhaps to keep our humility intact we should design for experience...)

The bottom line for me is that I have a job to do. That job is making things better for people to use/experience/enjoy. I prefer that my job title reflects that big-picture goal, instead of the fact that I organize information to do so.

IA and ID are important, even critical disciplines/skillsets contributing to the user experience, but by no means do they provide a people-centric umbrella for all user-centered design.

Even as I comment here, I consider how worthwhile my contribution is - does it really matter at all? Not really. I savored Lou's suggestion that we need to talk about how we do what we do, and develop a language to discuss that, far more than debate IA/ID/UX/whatever. I'm looking forward to that conversation of practicioner and practice...it's ongoing on SIGIA-L, CHI-WEB and elsewhere, in fits and spurts and surprising twists. But I have yet to find anywhere that it's sustained. Perhaps some of you know?

enjoy the weekend all.

Lots to think about... but I noticed that time is not always acknowledged in your comments. For me, IA and ID are timeless — fluid — as are our professional experiences. Thus, I qualify the little line in Dillon's comments about IA and ID being process to say IA and ID are unique processes and are made up of unique processes. Repetition of process is to perfect, or improve, or alter to meet a different circumstance, not to mass produce. IA and ID can't be separated but they can take new shape. They are FLUID.

Hi, please do not use this email address anymore. I get too much spam, had to shut down this account. Use: (markus(at)staas.biz)

Hallo, Deine Mail hat mich nicht erreicht, bitte benutze nur noch diese emailadresse: (markus(at)staas.biz),