Comment away...
In rereading this, I feel like I didn't do a very good job connecting my two fundamental points - that the IA community strikes me as being conservative and incurious, and that it is better at nurturance than quality control.
I'm eager to expand on the connection I do perceive between these two factors...but it'll have to wait at least until my flight touches down and I'm ensconced in my hotel room. Deal?
In rereading this, I feel like I didn't do a very good job connecting my two fundamental points - that the IA community strikes me as being conservative and incurious, and that it is better at nurturance than quality control.
I'm eager to expand on the connection I do perceive between these two factors...but it'll have to wait at least until my flight touches down and I'm ensconced in my hotel room. Deal?
That said, specialists repeatedly look for inspiration outside their field.
In large part, Boxes and Arrows (B&A) has always been a reflection of what the user experience community is already doing and thinking and what the editorial team believes that community should or will be reading, doing, and thinking. But because the latter is based on tacit knowledge, we open B&A up for critique, suggestion, and supplementation--and this openness has been happening right on the site. Authors and readers now collaborate on story ideas both before and after publication.
That the community wasn't aware of the particular reference is not important. I would say that you jumped in and commented is exactly the point. The community is, in the Surowieckian way, much wiser than one person can be when it comes to a cross-section of topics in our cross-disciplinary field. This rigor and diversity in subject matter is exactly why you need to continue being an outsider. By your growing and becoming wiser in complementary areas, the community benefits even if you never comment again. Others are feeling similarly like outsiders, and I only see this as helping to grow the IA community. Just from the outside this time.
That said, specialists repeatedly look for inspiration outside their field.
In large part, Boxes and Arrows (B&A) has always been a reflection of what the user experience community is already doing and thinking and what the editorial team believes that community should or will be reading, doing, and thinking. But because the latter is based on tacit knowledge, we open B&A up for critique, suggestion, and supplementation--and this openness has been happening right on the site. Authors and readers now collaborate on story ideas both before and after publication.
That the community wasn't aware of the particular reference is not important. I would say that you jumped in and commented is exactly the point. The community is, in the Surowieckian way, much wiser than one person can be when it comes to a cross-section of topics in our cross-disciplinary field. This rigor and diversity in subject matter is exactly why you need to continue being an outsider. By your growing and becoming wiser in complementary areas, the community benefits even if you never comment again. Others are feeling similarly like outsiders, and I only see this as helping to grow the IA community. Just from the outside this time.
Thanks for stirring up the inside from the outside! :-)
Are there other communities or forums that have taken up the challenge of discussing (in a practical rather than academic vein) IA and UX in the mobile and ubiquitous context?
My sense is that we need a critical mass of people with experience designing for everyware, and a more palpable sense of opportunity, before this conversation shifts from the realm of futurists to practitioners.
Thanks for stirring up the inside from the outside! :-)
Are there other communities or forums that have taken up the challenge of discussing (in a practical rather than academic vein) IA and UX in the mobile and ubiquitous context?
My sense is that we need a critical mass of people with experience designing for everyware, and a more palpable sense of opportunity, before this conversation shifts from the realm of futurists to practitioners.
A critical mass is good. A lot of IAs think in broader terms, but as my non-web IA work is limited, I personally hesitate to spout my theories too often.
People need mentors. And practical should be a hugely relative term.
A critical mass is good. A lot of IAs think in broader terms, but as my non-web IA work is limited, I personally hesitate to spout my theories too often.
People need mentors. And practical should be a hugely relative term.
"A professional community--no matter how knowledgeable, how apprized, how diverse--will never be as dexterous with other fields as it is its own."
I think Adam's point is that the most important challenges occur between the fields, in the seams of disciplines. I think this is especially the case for emerging technologies of the type that Adam calls everyware.
As a person educated in sociology who earlier in my career studied "the professions", I agree with Liz that well articulated practices inevitably bump up against practices orginating from other backgrounds. Yet, in contrast to Peter's point, which seems to equate theory with academia, I don't think a purely practical focus can prepare one for engaging those seams where practices bump together.
I have always thought that a practical theorist, a person with informed curiosity, could move from one to the other specialty by stretching their own interests and capabilities into new career opportunities. However, without a basic appreciation for theory, emerging practical challenges are too often met by rediscovering insights commonly known in other related areas, which is what I took as Adam's point about the B&A article as well as the classification of IA as a subspecialty within KM by Yahoo.
Anyone who wants to join ACM and pay for access to their digital library can review literally hundreds of papers over the past two decades dealing with issues that cut across concerns of IA. To me, practical theory is what separates the technician from the architect regardless of the occupational label you pin on the work activity.
On a somewhat more personal note, I have never worked as an IA, though I started using some of the techniques ,such as wireframes, in the mid 1990s designing websites. I remember objecting to the VP I reported to when he referred to me as a technical writer in 1992, saying to him that I did information design. So, if I've misconstrued some of the nuances of Adam's post, my apologies in advance.
"A professional community--no matter how knowledgeable, how apprized, how diverse--will never be as dexterous with other fields as it is its own."
I think Adam's point is that the most important challenges occur between the fields, in the seams of disciplines. I think this is especially the case for emerging technologies of the type that Adam calls everyware.
As a person educated in sociology who earlier in my career studied "the professions", I agree with Liz that well articulated practices inevitably bump up against practices orginating from other backgrounds. Yet, in contrast to Peter's point, which seems to equate theory with academia, I don't think a purely practical focus can prepare one for engaging those seams where practices bump together.
I have always thought that a practical theorist, a person with informed curiosity, could move from one to the other specialty by stretching their own interests and capabilities into new career opportunities. However, without a basic appreciation for theory, emerging practical challenges are too often met by rediscovering insights commonly known in other related areas, which is what I took as Adam's point about the B&A article as well as the classification of IA as a subspecialty within KM by Yahoo.
Anyone who wants to join ACM and pay for access to their digital library can review literally hundreds of papers over the past two decades dealing with issues that cut across concerns of IA. To me, practical theory is what separates the technician from the architect regardless of the occupational label you pin on the work activity.
On a somewhat more personal note, I have never worked as an IA, though I started using some of the techniques ,such as wireframes, in the mid 1990s designing websites. I remember objecting to the VP I reported to when he referred to me as a technical writer in 1992, saying to him that I did information design. So, if I've misconstrued some of the nuances of Adam's post, my apologies in advance.
I just presented an intro to IA in Sydney to mostly web developers. I had many managers come up after and complain that they are not getting the breadth of what I was presenting from their very well paid IA consultants. They only get sitemaps and some navigation, even if they are doing the extensive research that could lead to page structure, semantic structuring of content (to guide front-end and back-end development), or light interaction design. Many of these people also came to the more forward thinking IA for the Come to Me Web presentation and found much of what they have been really seeking, a means to understand and structure information so they could think about the use across devices. Many are needing this in their solutions, but the IA community is not delivering or even interested. They have reached beyond the boundary of Australia to hit the US, but found things not that different from many of the companies. In a few conversations I have had since I have returned it is not IAs that get tapped when people need to look at solutions beyond the webpage. This is why I have steered clear of the IA label myself.
I just presented an intro to IA in Sydney to mostly web developers. I had many managers come up after and complain that they are not getting the breadth of what I was presenting from their very well paid IA consultants. They only get sitemaps and some navigation, even if they are doing the extensive research that could lead to page structure, semantic structuring of content (to guide front-end and back-end development), or light interaction design. Many of these people also came to the more forward thinking IA for the Come to Me Web presentation and found much of what they have been really seeking, a means to understand and structure information so they could think about the use across devices. Many are needing this in their solutions, but the IA community is not delivering or even interested. They have reached beyond the boundary of Australia to hit the US, but found things not that different from many of the companies. In a few conversations I have had since I have returned it is not IAs that get tapped when people need to look at solutions beyond the webpage. This is why I have steered clear of the IA label myself.
I think Austin's comment is an important one. It can be hard for IAs to express beyond their particular concerns because their work environments are so constraining. In my experience, IAs have understood for years the need to address information beyond PC-based web experiences. But corporations are organized in these channel-based siloes (the "web" people over here, the 'phone" people over there, the "retail" people somewhere else), and so doing meaningful broader IA is really freakin' hard.
In terms of the lack of depth or rigor and historic awareness in IA; well, that's true of any field. I don't find that to be a meaningful criticism of IA any more than it would be of any creative field.
I think Austin's comment is an important one. It can be hard for IAs to express beyond their particular concerns because their work environments are so constraining. In my experience, IAs have understood for years the need to address information beyond PC-based web experiences. But corporations are organized in these channel-based siloes (the "web" people over here, the 'phone" people over there, the "retail" people somewhere else), and so doing meaningful broader IA is really freakin' hard.
In terms of the lack of depth or rigor and historic awareness in IA; well, that's true of any field. I don't find that to be a meaningful criticism of IA any more than it would be of any creative field.
Well, information architecture may well be - at least, I've been arguing this since 1999. But I don't believe that information architects are interested in taking on these particular challenges. Of course, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
And I very strongly disagree with the notion that a lack of professional depth and rigor is general in the world. Certainly as I've been writing and speaking about everyware these last two years, I tell you without shame that I have been rather comprehensively schooled in the requirement that my arguments account for and situate themselves in the vast body of relevant intellectual production that has come before. It's just not optional; where I've had my feet held to the fire, it's been by people utterly immersed in the culture of peer review and parsimonious acceptance.
I'm not necessarily saying that's the best of all possible ways to do things - or that I would be comfortable in such a context - but it would be absurd to insist that (say) academic HCI doesn't gain rigor and historical grounding from these constraints.
Well, information architecture may well be - at least, I've been arguing this since 1999. But I don't believe that information architects are interested in taking on these particular challenges. Of course, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
And I very strongly disagree with the notion that a lack of professional depth and rigor is general in the world. Certainly as I've been writing and speaking about everyware these last two years, I tell you without shame that I have been rather comprehensively schooled in the requirement that my arguments account for and situate themselves in the vast body of relevant intellectual production that has come before. It's just not optional; where I've had my feet held to the fire, it's been by people utterly immersed in the culture of peer review and parsimonious acceptance.
I'm not necessarily saying that's the best of all possible ways to do things - or that I would be comfortable in such a context - but it would be absurd to insist that (say) academic HCI doesn't gain rigor and historical grounding from these constraints.
I mean, IA has many theorists who have heaps of rigor, but once it turned into a popular profession, that rigor was lost. And I'm guessing once ubicomp/everyware becomes broadly professionalized, rigor will get thrown out the window.
I mean, IA has many theorists who have heaps of rigor, but once it turned into a popular profession, that rigor was lost. And I'm guessing once ubicomp/everyware becomes broadly professionalized, rigor will get thrown out the window.
The IA way of thinking that PeterMe brings up is the same rhetoric from the early and mid-80s from the communication and design practitioners. The big push then was to take a more design perspective and understand the "audience". But then again there is almost nothing new in IA that did not exist prior. It adopts as if it invents, but there is really a lack of deep diving and exploration of what is being done elsewhere.
I still love the IA community and believe strongly in its foundations, but it also needs to grow. IA needs to build thesauri to other related concepts and understandings as this is much of what holds it back from building upon what others have done before us. There are many of us that read and think broadly and deeply, but still find it shocking when the "new" ideas are years or decades old with not even a nod to previous existence.
This thin nature leads to credibility issues with other professions. This is one of the main reasons I do not use IA as a title, it is a role and a foundation for all my work (but it is what I learned in the 80s at university long before an IA moniker was available). When I use IA, I get put in a box with limited expectations. This is largely what others in IA have put around the profession as its domain. The others are not the leaders, but the regular practitioners that interact with clients and such.
In digging this past few weeks on line for elementary IA sites, I found there is little there. We have Boxes and Arrows, which starts at the middle of experience and builds up and out. But, when looking for the basics of wireframes, content inventory, content analysis, facets, etc. it is mostly missing on line. Much of this stuff was in print periodicals in the 90s or in books. Many of the companion sites to the print versions are gone. This is unfortunately ironic, but also telling of the profession at times.
The IA way of thinking that PeterMe brings up is the same rhetoric from the early and mid-80s from the communication and design practitioners. The big push then was to take a more design perspective and understand the "audience". But then again there is almost nothing new in IA that did not exist prior. It adopts as if it invents, but there is really a lack of deep diving and exploration of what is being done elsewhere.
I still love the IA community and believe strongly in its foundations, but it also needs to grow. IA needs to build thesauri to other related concepts and understandings as this is much of what holds it back from building upon what others have done before us. There are many of us that read and think broadly and deeply, but still find it shocking when the "new" ideas are years or decades old with not even a nod to previous existence.
This thin nature leads to credibility issues with other professions. This is one of the main reasons I do not use IA as a title, it is a role and a foundation for all my work (but it is what I learned in the 80s at university long before an IA moniker was available). When I use IA, I get put in a box with limited expectations. This is largely what others in IA have put around the profession as its domain. The others are not the leaders, but the regular practitioners that interact with clients and such.
In digging this past few weeks on line for elementary IA sites, I found there is little there. We have Boxes and Arrows, which starts at the middle of experience and builds up and out. But, when looking for the basics of wireframes, content inventory, content analysis, facets, etc. it is mostly missing on line. Much of this stuff was in print periodicals in the 90s or in books. Many of the companion sites to the print versions are gone. This is unfortunately ironic, but also telling of the profession at times.
Stop designing products...
start designing experiences!
Once again, in my view, Adam's point about HCI is apt, except that, when you leave aside his point about IA practitioners rediscovering well known issues, both approaches (HCI and IA) are limited in the same way. Both predominantly use a cognitive model to guide the concept of what constitutes information, building tools and techniques incorporating that assumption. Yet, the cognitive model of information does not encompass experience.
The key issues may not involve how to optimize the findability or discoverability of information, or people, through Everyware, but rather how to fit the cognitive tools supporting findability and discoverability into the routine activities people engage in when they experience a product or service. Paul Dourish and Genevieve Bell offer an interesting analysis of this issue in their essay, "The Infrastructure of Experience and the Experience of Infrastructure", available on Dourish's website. It is essentially an argument for "seamful" design.
A broad discussion of these issues has occurred over the past couple of years under the label of "customer experience management." While I prefer to use the term "people" over "user" or "customer", the practical setting of consulting typically requires using one of the latter two terms. I choose customer everytime since that is the language that resonates with executive management.
Stop designing products...
start designing experiences!
Once again, in my view, Adam's point about HCI is apt, except that, when you leave aside his point about IA practitioners rediscovering well known issues, both approaches (HCI and IA) are limited in the same way. Both predominantly use a cognitive model to guide the concept of what constitutes information, building tools and techniques incorporating that assumption. Yet, the cognitive model of information does not encompass experience.
The key issues may not involve how to optimize the findability or discoverability of information, or people, through Everyware, but rather how to fit the cognitive tools supporting findability and discoverability into the routine activities people engage in when they experience a product or service. Paul Dourish and Genevieve Bell offer an interesting analysis of this issue in their essay, "The Infrastructure of Experience and the Experience of Infrastructure", available on Dourish's website. It is essentially an argument for "seamful" design.
A broad discussion of these issues has occurred over the past couple of years under the label of "customer experience management." While I prefer to use the term "people" over "user" or "customer", the practical setting of consulting typically requires using one of the latter two terms. I choose customer everytime since that is the language that resonates with executive management.
As someone who hires information architects to work on projects, I absolutely need to know that when I put out a help-wanted ad for "Information Architect", I will be able to find candidates who can at the very least produce sitemaps and wireframes. Unlike 6 years ago, I can now be fairly confident that if a resume says "Information Architect", the candidate will know how to make sitemaps and wireframes. I will also, of course, need to guage how well they think about design and experience strategies, how well they can engage clients and users, etc. But even in those cases, a simple examination of the candidate's documentation often provides the key answers and insights. The normalization of the field and of the deliverables themselves has made this job a lot easier over the last 8 years or so.
As a person who sells services to clients, I need to be able to spell out clearly (and quickly) what they're going to get for their money. The normalization of the IA field makes this job easier, too, and it makes clients more able to understand how their problems will be approached by my teams and what specific kinds of hard deliverables will be produced. I imagine this is the same inside large organization where managers need to hire a permanent team -- describing an IA's role to their management is easier now than ever before.
With respect to the B&A article, I think you're being a wee bit snobby. The IA universe is very diverse and there are plenty of people at the entry levels or working in environments where their exposure to a broad range of ideas may be limited. Again, as a person who builds and manages teams, I know that sometimes something that seems obvious to me may not be obvious to an IA right out of school or who never worked as a consultant. Isn't it part of the role of a professional community to help newbies and crossovers learn more? If we decried all writing that merely restated prior art, I think you'd have to burn 90% of all the books in the IA canon, shut down most of the web sites and mailing lists, and only publish a single 500-page book once per year. It sounds like you simply don't want to mingle with newbies -- which is fine, but I don't think you need to devalue their milieu, either.
But here's where I agree with you, Adam: As an individual user experience designer, and as a leader of teams working on projects for clients, I often find the need to throw out the "methodology" and invent new processes, tools, documents, and exercises. It's far more fulfilling as a professional to totally invent a new way of attacking a problem than it is to simply plug the problem into an existing methodology. But IAs capable of breaking the mold like this are few and far between. This is where the current state of IA can indeed become an obstacle, a hindrance to innovation.
As someone who hires information architects to work on projects, I absolutely need to know that when I put out a help-wanted ad for "Information Architect", I will be able to find candidates who can at the very least produce sitemaps and wireframes. Unlike 6 years ago, I can now be fairly confident that if a resume says "Information Architect", the candidate will know how to make sitemaps and wireframes. I will also, of course, need to guage how well they think about design and experience strategies, how well they can engage clients and users, etc. But even in those cases, a simple examination of the candidate's documentation often provides the key answers and insights. The normalization of the field and of the deliverables themselves has made this job a lot easier over the last 8 years or so.
As a person who sells services to clients, I need to be able to spell out clearly (and quickly) what they're going to get for their money. The normalization of the IA field makes this job easier, too, and it makes clients more able to understand how their problems will be approached by my teams and what specific kinds of hard deliverables will be produced. I imagine this is the same inside large organization where managers need to hire a permanent team -- describing an IA's role to their management is easier now than ever before.
With respect to the B&A article, I think you're being a wee bit snobby. The IA universe is very diverse and there are plenty of people at the entry levels or working in environments where their exposure to a broad range of ideas may be limited. Again, as a person who builds and manages teams, I know that sometimes something that seems obvious to me may not be obvious to an IA right out of school or who never worked as a consultant. Isn't it part of the role of a professional community to help newbies and crossovers learn more? If we decried all writing that merely restated prior art, I think you'd have to burn 90% of all the books in the IA canon, shut down most of the web sites and mailing lists, and only publish a single 500-page book once per year. It sounds like you simply don't want to mingle with newbies -- which is fine, but I don't think you need to devalue their milieu, either.
But here's where I agree with you, Adam: As an individual user experience designer, and as a leader of teams working on projects for clients, I often find the need to throw out the "methodology" and invent new processes, tools, documents, and exercises. It's far more fulfilling as a professional to totally invent a new way of attacking a problem than it is to simply plug the problem into an existing methodology. But IAs capable of breaking the mold like this are few and far between. This is where the current state of IA can indeed become an obstacle, a hindrance to innovation.
During the years when information architecture (as we know it today) was first emerging as a distinct practice, my title was "project manager" or "producer" even though I was for the most part functioning as a professional information architect. As the IA field came together, it was great to be able to gravitate towards others who were doing the same sort of work, and to improve my practice by learning from others. As the field matured and the job/role became institutionalized as a key component of user experience team structures -- in particular for web design and development -- I found myself in a better position to use my experience and knowledge of the field to "get ahead" in the world. I've been able, through my self-identification as an information architect, to gradually grow from doing ad-hoc interaction design work, to leading the IA aspect of project teams, to starting my own company and building it up with IA as an integral part of the company's core service offerings.
But therein lies the paradox of specialization: when you choose a narrow path, you can certainly make more progress along that path but very often to the exclusion of other paths. In the case of Behavior, when we first tried to position ourselves in 5 words or less, we said simply "We design interactive systems" in the hopes that we'd be hired for every kind of interactive design under the sun: game design, mobile apps, Metrocard machines, set-top boxes, home automation systems, interactive art installations... the whole world seemed possible. We quickly learned, however, that it's a lot better for business to position ourselves specifically as a "web design" company than as a "user experience solutions" company or some other vague or idealistic rubric.
Adam, it sounds like you are lamenting the fact that information architecture was ever defined in the first place, that you'd prefer a return to the days when we all didn't really know what we were doing exactly and where we were making it up as we go along. I often think you may be right, but I'm not sure what to do about it.
During the years when information architecture (as we know it today) was first emerging as a distinct practice, my title was "project manager" or "producer" even though I was for the most part functioning as a professional information architect. As the IA field came together, it was great to be able to gravitate towards others who were doing the same sort of work, and to improve my practice by learning from others. As the field matured and the job/role became institutionalized as a key component of user experience team structures -- in particular for web design and development -- I found myself in a better position to use my experience and knowledge of the field to "get ahead" in the world. I've been able, through my self-identification as an information architect, to gradually grow from doing ad-hoc interaction design work, to leading the IA aspect of project teams, to starting my own company and building it up with IA as an integral part of the company's core service offerings.
But therein lies the paradox of specialization: when you choose a narrow path, you can certainly make more progress along that path but very often to the exclusion of other paths. In the case of Behavior, when we first tried to position ourselves in 5 words or less, we said simply "We design interactive systems" in the hopes that we'd be hired for every kind of interactive design under the sun: game design, mobile apps, Metrocard machines, set-top boxes, home automation systems, interactive art installations... the whole world seemed possible. We quickly learned, however, that it's a lot better for business to position ourselves specifically as a "web design" company than as a "user experience solutions" company or some other vague or idealistic rubric.
Adam, it sounds like you are lamenting the fact that information architecture was ever defined in the first place, that you'd prefer a return to the days when we all didn't really know what we were doing exactly and where we were making it up as we go along. I often think you may be right, but I'm not sure what to do about it.
Where I disagree, though, is in characterizing my response to the B&A piece as primarily a reaction to the author's lack of domain knowledge, n00bness if you will. It's not. I guess I feel that the editors should never have let that piece slip by.
And if it were necessary to dispense with the majority of IA-centric magazines and books to improve the average quality? Heck, I fail to see the tragedy of that. Ordinarily I'd say it's always healthy to have a diversity of viewpoints and platforms, but when there's no real controversy in the community that would support that kind of ferment, all you get from the increased production is overlap, redundancy and a greater amount of noise to contend with in the search for clean signal.
Where I disagree, though, is in characterizing my response to the B&A piece as primarily a reaction to the author's lack of domain knowledge, n00bness if you will. It's not. I guess I feel that the editors should never have let that piece slip by.
And if it were necessary to dispense with the majority of IA-centric magazines and books to improve the average quality? Heck, I fail to see the tragedy of that. Ordinarily I'd say it's always healthy to have a diversity of viewpoints and platforms, but when there's no real controversy in the community that would support that kind of ferment, all you get from the increased production is overlap, redundancy and a greater amount of noise to contend with in the search for clean signal.
Some people like to make sure that whatever they write is, as far as they can tell, new ground. The anxiety of influence and all that. Others like to write about what is already known in order to communicate that idea to a new audience, perhaps to say it in a new and clearer way. I think you, like me, fall into the first camp for the most part, questing for originality. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the second camp, and sometimes in order to communicate an idea to another person you have to be in both camps at once.
When I read Peter Morville's Ambient Findability, my first reaction was that I was reading about a bunch of stuff I already knew a lot about . Half of the concrete facts and many of the peicemeal insights in the book were already, I would guess, common knowledge among many seasoned interactive designers and technologists. But the bigger messages that emerged from and were contained within the familiar parts were new and refreshing, and ultimately very satisfying and enriching to me. I'm sure some readers of your own book might feel the same way if they were as familiar with ubicomp issues as you are.
I guess all writing is a combination of the familiar and the new, in various proportions and depending on the audience.
Some people like to make sure that whatever they write is, as far as they can tell, new ground. The anxiety of influence and all that. Others like to write about what is already known in order to communicate that idea to a new audience, perhaps to say it in a new and clearer way. I think you, like me, fall into the first camp for the most part, questing for originality. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the second camp, and sometimes in order to communicate an idea to another person you have to be in both camps at once.
When I read Peter Morville's Ambient Findability, my first reaction was that I was reading about a bunch of stuff I already knew a lot about . Half of the concrete facts and many of the peicemeal insights in the book were already, I would guess, common knowledge among many seasoned interactive designers and technologists. But the bigger messages that emerged from and were contained within the familiar parts were new and refreshing, and ultimately very satisfying and enriching to me. I'm sure some readers of your own book might feel the same way if they were as familiar with ubicomp issues as you are.
I guess all writing is a combination of the familiar and the new, in various proportions and depending on the audience.
I've only heard the "information architecture" term a few years back and now my official title is the same. I'm excited to be part of the profession, although I have to admit that I do not want it limited to designing for the web. My background is in "Information Management," so my take is that we should be paid to make sense of an organization's information, not necessarily a specific subset or the information's medium of delivery.
As a relative newbie to the profession (although I've experienced a number of years in technical and "business analyst" roles), I do not view the profession as designing for the web or for software systems. In fact, I embrace the first line of the wikipedia entry which defines IA as, "the practice of structuring information (knowledge or data) for a purpose.” No mention if digital information. No mention of web sites.
I would urge you to think beyond any digital form (including websites). I see myself as a change agent within my company and hopefully within the profession because I think we need to be "information ecologists," a term used by Thomas Davenport to describe a concern with an organization's entire information environment - some have discussed "enterprise information architecture" as well, and this too I believe is beyond any information system or web site.
Sure, the IA conferences and talks and research may focus on specific products and services, but this is a relatively new profession. We can define what IA is. We can spark new research. We can drive the focus.
The beauty of the field is that the people who practice it come from a variety of disciplines.
So, who cares what title one uses. I want to be part of the IA community because I want to learn, I want to grow - and I want to help define the future. Technologies and information mediums come and go, but wrestling with how to efficiently create, locate, analyze, modify, distribute, store, use, and dispose of information will always be struggles we are faced with.
I've only heard the "information architecture" term a few years back and now my official title is the same. I'm excited to be part of the profession, although I have to admit that I do not want it limited to designing for the web. My background is in "Information Management," so my take is that we should be paid to make sense of an organization's information, not necessarily a specific subset or the information's medium of delivery.
As a relative newbie to the profession (although I've experienced a number of years in technical and "business analyst" roles), I do not view the profession as designing for the web or for software systems. In fact, I embrace the first line of the wikipedia entry which defines IA as, "the practice of structuring information (knowledge or data) for a purpose.” No mention if digital information. No mention of web sites.
I would urge you to think beyond any digital form (including websites). I see myself as a change agent within my company and hopefully within the profession because I think we need to be "information ecologists," a term used by Thomas Davenport to describe a concern with an organization's entire information environment - some have discussed "enterprise information architecture" as well, and this too I believe is beyond any information system or web site.
Sure, the IA conferences and talks and research may focus on specific products and services, but this is a relatively new profession. We can define what IA is. We can spark new research. We can drive the focus.
The beauty of the field is that the people who practice it come from a variety of disciplines.
So, who cares what title one uses. I want to be part of the IA community because I want to learn, I want to grow - and I want to help define the future. Technologies and information mediums come and go, but wrestling with how to efficiently create, locate, analyze, modify, distribute, store, use, and dispose of information will always be struggles we are faced with.
I suspect that you may be just as limited by your focus on the organisation as Adam is by his stipulation of the digital domain. The emphasis on an organisational information ecology is hard to reconcile with a truly user-centred practice, although I would agree with you that this is where the field appears to be going.
That things do seem to be shaking out this way pushes some of us to the margins - and in Adam's case, at least, apparently beyond them. I have a good deal of sympathy, having no interest myself in being an organisational "change agent" (awful, sterile piece of jargon, that) but in designing systems for people.
I suspect that you may be just as limited by your focus on the organisation as Adam is by his stipulation of the digital domain. The emphasis on an organisational information ecology is hard to reconcile with a truly user-centred practice, although I would agree with you that this is where the field appears to be going.
That things do seem to be shaking out this way pushes some of us to the margins - and in Adam's case, at least, apparently beyond them. I have a good deal of sympathy, having no interest myself in being an organisational "change agent" (awful, sterile piece of jargon, that) but in designing systems for people.
As I pointed out in the comments on a recent post of Austin's, I think we finally need to confront the fact that the frameworks we're designing are in no way neutral or objective, that they serve certain ends and the requirements of certain groups, and not others.
In other words, Rob, I almost feel like we're speaking two different languages. I'm sure you'll let me know if this is not a fair characterization of your stance, but I feel like you want to use the methodological tools IA gives you to resolve and improve the internal processes of an institution - or, importantly and somewhat more honestly, an enterprise. I want to use those same tools to reinforce the prerogatives of those individual whose values are pitted against the needs of enterprise.
In this light, my interest in the everyware case isn't so much about digital anything as it is in what the words "ubiquitous" and "pervasive" imply for all of us. And these are, in the end, political questions.
I find that the persistent refusal to engage political questions in our practice amounts to a kind of willed blindness. It's certainly one of things driving my frustration - maybe I'd be less dismayed by a "critical IA." And maybe that's all I'm asking for.
As I pointed out in the comments on a recent post of Austin's, I think we finally need to confront the fact that the frameworks we're designing are in no way neutral or objective, that they serve certain ends and the requirements of certain groups, and not others.
In other words, Rob, I almost feel like we're speaking two different languages. I'm sure you'll let me know if this is not a fair characterization of your stance, but I feel like you want to use the methodological tools IA gives you to resolve and improve the internal processes of an institution - or, importantly and somewhat more honestly, an enterprise. I want to use those same tools to reinforce the prerogatives of those individual whose values are pitted against the needs of enterprise.
In this light, my interest in the everyware case isn't so much about digital anything as it is in what the words "ubiquitous" and "pervasive" imply for all of us. And these are, in the end, political questions.
I find that the persistent refusal to engage political questions in our practice amounts to a kind of willed blindness. It's certainly one of things driving my frustration - maybe I'd be less dismayed by a "critical IA." And maybe that's all I'm asking for.
Dan, you're correct in saying that I bring my experiences with me and it flavors my take of what "IA" could be. And I do acknowledge that IA's historic focus is somewhat constrained, but does it have to be? The last I checked, "IA" is not typically what someone jumps into after getting an "IA" degree. There are a multitude of experiences that shape how each IA approaches his/her work, so while there are traditional models/approaches/deliverables, I think we should all think outside the box as AG appears (don't want to speak for you) to be prodding us to do.
As AG suggests, it's usually a certain group who defines the boundaries of a system that we are hired to design for. In theory, all of us should be thinking holistically and ecologically , as PeterMe suggests, but we don't always have the opportunity to think of the bigger picture and analyze the political ramifications. Why?
Perhaps some of us as "little IAs" are in no position to do so. Can we create information policy? Where do those policies reside? Within an organization? Set by a given government? Sure, we have to abide by them, but how many of us have the power to shape such policy?
It seems to me, Adam, that part of your frustration lies with the limited roles IAs currently possess. Some IAs work as consultants, where they are only hired to design a product without being afforded the opportunity to look at the bigger picture. Others work in-house and can perhaps deal with the organizational issues moreso. Some work in federal markets, still others develop social software (so their client is the everyman/woman - not one organization, etc.). So we have many people working in many markets struggling with many information issues for many customer types. The "system" then means many things to many people - it may be one person, many people, constrained, free for all, etc.
My point, AG, isn't at all that we should be using IA tools and methodologies to solve an enterprise dilemma. IAs should, however, design with an eye on the bigger picture, and we must insert ourselves into these theoretical and political discussions that you appear to be igniting. How can we ignite change? Well, for one, IAs might become authors like yourself to prod forward thinking and instigate change.
With that said, at the end of the day, my personal participation in IA stuff helps me by getting practical tools for my traditional IA "toolchest." The political and theoretical discussions are important, but they do not help me feed my family.
However, as I move up in my career, I hope to have the power to shape information policy, starting with my own organization and outward.
Dan, you're correct in saying that I bring my experiences with me and it flavors my take of what "IA" could be. And I do acknowledge that IA's historic focus is somewhat constrained, but does it have to be? The last I checked, "IA" is not typically what someone jumps into after getting an "IA" degree. There are a multitude of experiences that shape how each IA approaches his/her work, so while there are traditional models/approaches/deliverables, I think we should all think outside the box as AG appears (don't want to speak for you) to be prodding us to do.
As AG suggests, it's usually a certain group who defines the boundaries of a system that we are hired to design for. In theory, all of us should be thinking holistically and ecologically , as PeterMe suggests, but we don't always have the opportunity to think of the bigger picture and analyze the political ramifications. Why?
Perhaps some of us as "little IAs" are in no position to do so. Can we create information policy? Where do those policies reside? Within an organization? Set by a given government? Sure, we have to abide by them, but how many of us have the power to shape such policy?
It seems to me, Adam, that part of your frustration lies with the limited roles IAs currently possess. Some IAs work as consultants, where they are only hired to design a product without being afforded the opportunity to look at the bigger picture. Others work in-house and can perhaps deal with the organizational issues moreso. Some work in federal markets, still others develop social software (so their client is the everyman/woman - not one organization, etc.). So we have many people working in many markets struggling with many information issues for many customer types. The "system" then means many things to many people - it may be one person, many people, constrained, free for all, etc.
My point, AG, isn't at all that we should be using IA tools and methodologies to solve an enterprise dilemma. IAs should, however, design with an eye on the bigger picture, and we must insert ourselves into these theoretical and political discussions that you appear to be igniting. How can we ignite change? Well, for one, IAs might become authors like yourself to prod forward thinking and instigate change.
With that said, at the end of the day, my personal participation in IA stuff helps me by getting practical tools for my traditional IA "toolchest." The political and theoretical discussions are important, but they do not help me feed my family.
However, as I move up in my career, I hope to have the power to shape information policy, starting with my own organization and outward.
I am referring to "information ecology" - not necessarily constrained to the boundaries of a given organization, although that's the lense I often look through since my day job is financed by one :)
Your focus is on the user - do you have constraints? When you design, there often is a particular audience in mind. There are certain design requirements. My use of "information ecology" is just as you imply - that by looking at the bigger picture, we focus on the user-centered experience rather than isolated solutions or responses to requirements.
The struggle, it seems, is reconciling what IAs are paid to do given the fact that someone else is likely defining what the system is.
I am referring to "information ecology" - not necessarily constrained to the boundaries of a given organization, although that's the lense I often look through since my day job is financed by one :)
Your focus is on the user - do you have constraints? When you design, there often is a particular audience in mind. There are certain design requirements. My use of "information ecology" is just as you imply - that by looking at the bigger picture, we focus on the user-centered experience rather than isolated solutions or responses to requirements.
The struggle, it seems, is reconciling what IAs are paid to do given the fact that someone else is likely defining what the system is.
This "willed blindness" extends into the broader design community...
http://www.spychips.com/blog/ 200...e_youve_be.html
...and I'd argue, far beyond that. Isn't it more a symptom of global capitalism than IA?
This "willed blindness" extends into the broader design community...
http://www.spychips.com/blog/ 200...e_youve_be.html
...and I'd argue, far beyond that. Isn't it more a symptom of global capitalism than IA?
There are some really interesting articles available from the Mobile Interaction with the Real World (MIRW 2006) workshop from last month's Mobile HCI conference that speak to the example you offer.
http://www.hcilab.org/events/mirw2006/
However, I don't see the difference in terms of potential misuse between using contactless payment systems and reading passive RFID tags. Even simpler, if I go on an automobile trip and use any old credit card, my purchase of anything with it is essentially a breadcrumb. If the information query, or credit card purchase, ends up as an entry in a database the person involved is trackable.
However, the issues become more IA-like when you consider that no visual language exists to indicate the presence of an RFID tag. Even if developers of Everyware wanted to declare the presence of an RFID tag, as AG's second design guideline in Everyware instructs, there aren't any visual conventions for doing so which everybody, or nearly everybody, might recognize.
Look at the the study, "User Perceptions on Mobile Interaction with Visual and RFID Tags," or "A graphic language for touch-based interactions," from the conference mentioned above. The first one offers an especially interesting comparison of RFID and visual tagging for cell phone interactions and user perception. They make the point that users don't understand what result to expect from the technology when they interact with it.
The technology involved, as I'm sure you are aware, is especially relevant to your own work on findability IMHO. I offered my own insights into the topoic back in January at http://www.skilfulminds.com/21
There are some really interesting articles available from the Mobile Interaction with the Real World (MIRW 2006) workshop from last month's Mobile HCI conference that speak to the example you offer.
http://www.hcilab.org/events/mirw2006/
However, I don't see the difference in terms of potential misuse between using contactless payment systems and reading passive RFID tags. Even simpler, if I go on an automobile trip and use any old credit card, my purchase of anything with it is essentially a breadcrumb. If the information query, or credit card purchase, ends up as an entry in a database the person involved is trackable.
However, the issues become more IA-like when you consider that no visual language exists to indicate the presence of an RFID tag. Even if developers of Everyware wanted to declare the presence of an RFID tag, as AG's second design guideline in Everyware instructs, there aren't any visual conventions for doing so which everybody, or nearly everybody, might recognize.
Look at the the study, "User Perceptions on Mobile Interaction with Visual and RFID Tags," or "A graphic language for touch-based interactions," from the conference mentioned above. The first one offers an especially interesting comparison of RFID and visual tagging for cell phone interactions and user perception. They make the point that users don't understand what result to expect from the technology when they interact with it.
The technology involved, as I'm sure you are aware, is especially relevant to your own work on findability IMHO. I offered my own insights into the topoic back in January at http://www.skilfulminds.com/21
What is even more bothersome is that the so-called innovators of IA seem more concerned with self promotion and aggrandizemnt than promoting a more thoughtful and collaborative approach to viewing the bigger picture of 'Customer/User Experience.' There is also a severe lack of acknowledgment to the valuable work contributed by other practitioners outside of the 'IA' moniker.
And lastly, as mentioned earlier, I think more managers are coming to realize just how limited the skillsets are of the IAs they've hired. In order to remain competitive globally, IAs today need to get off the pedestal and start thinking more holistically about where they can add value in terms of breadth and depth.
What is even more bothersome is that the so-called innovators of IA seem more concerned with self promotion and aggrandizemnt than promoting a more thoughtful and collaborative approach to viewing the bigger picture of 'Customer/User Experience.' There is also a severe lack of acknowledgment to the valuable work contributed by other practitioners outside of the 'IA' moniker.
And lastly, as mentioned earlier, I think more managers are coming to realize just how limited the skillsets are of the IAs they've hired. In order to remain competitive globally, IAs today need to get off the pedestal and start thinking more holistically about where they can add value in terms of breadth and depth.
http://ideaconference.org/
Perhaps you are spending too much time with the wrong IA's?
Don't forget sturgeon's law.
http://ideaconference.org/
Perhaps you are spending too much time with the wrong IA's?
Don't forget sturgeon's law.
Perhaps like you, I've always felt a bit like IA is a little too much like tee-ball: everyone gets to bat, no one strikes out, no one really loses, we're all just having fun. While I admire much of the spirit of openness and inclusion that underlies that de facto stance, I agree with your conclusion that it has come at the cost of serious scholarship and meaningful debate.
Some of that may be attributeable to IA's position as so entirely a practical discipline. Almost all IAs practice in the for- or non-profit corporate world on projects of implementation. Very little research -- theoretical or applied -- of significant scale, duration, or implication is ever attempted squarely from within the discipline of IA. The question is, why? Is it that the problems IA grapples with are of such limited scope or complexity that such sustained research isn't necessary? I doubt it.
More likely, it's that the structure of the profession makes it unnecessary. The barriers to entry are extremely low, accountability is fairly low, and competition within the profession is also comparably low. That has meant that the social and economic incentives that typically drive professions to simultaneously seek out more exacting definitions of quality *and* pioneering new frameworks have been largely absent. If you were to try to design a system that manifested the conditions for those social and economic incentives to emerge, what would you do?
Perhaps like you, I've always felt a bit like IA is a little too much like tee-ball: everyone gets to bat, no one strikes out, no one really loses, we're all just having fun. While I admire much of the spirit of openness and inclusion that underlies that de facto stance, I agree with your conclusion that it has come at the cost of serious scholarship and meaningful debate.
Some of that may be attributeable to IA's position as so entirely a practical discipline. Almost all IAs practice in the for- or non-profit corporate world on projects of implementation. Very little research -- theoretical or applied -- of significant scale, duration, or implication is ever attempted squarely from within the discipline of IA. The question is, why? Is it that the problems IA grapples with are of such limited scope or complexity that such sustained research isn't necessary? I doubt it.
More likely, it's that the structure of the profession makes it unnecessary. The barriers to entry are extremely low, accountability is fairly low, and competition within the profession is also comparably low. That has meant that the social and economic incentives that typically drive professions to simultaneously seek out more exacting definitions of quality *and* pioneering new frameworks have been largely absent. If you were to try to design a system that manifested the conditions for those social and economic incentives to emerge, what would you do?
I think that any meaningful incentive structure has to include both, because of the heterogeneity of responses people display.
I myself respond better to carrots, to praise and positive reinforcement, so for me and people like me I can easily imagine that having one's work singled out in public, before the widest possible IA audience, would be an effective measure. Perhaps a panel at the annual Summit, dedicated to exploring the insights of the year's five top information architectures, with a cash prize for that adjudged the very best - a Webbies with teeth.
Of course, some people's psyches are geared more to fear than to hope, and if we are to capture all of the potential for excellence latent in the field we'd need to specify some sticks as well. I can easily imagine a parallel annual piece - perhaps in Boxes and Arrows! - dedicated to lambasting the year's worst efforts, those that confound their users, blunt their sponsors' initiatives and so on. (Too, we know all too well that such blunders are very often not the IA's fault. Some clients are notoriously recalcitrant. How much time could be saved if IAs were able to push back by saying that such-and-such a requested feature would be sure and land the client's project in a public pillory of the year's worst?)
I can't believe that with all the institutions we've collectively given rise to over the years, none of them has sponsored some version of at least the awards for excellence.
Christina, I'm not interested in Peter's IDEA conference in the slightest, albeit for different and entirely personal reasons. I would say this to his face (and in a sense, of course, I am), but I think he started with a sound concept, and then proceeded to alienate a lot of potentially enthusiastic supporters with a profoundly stupid post on his site about "the usual suspects." Perhaps you remember it?
The gist was that as Peter looked around him at the universe of contemporary conference speakers and saw a lot of the same names appearing on their agendas, speakers whose viewpoints he found banal and predictable, then swore that his conference would be different.
He singled out the Aula conference I happened to have been at for special condemnation, listing a bunch of names and saying, in so many words, that everyone already knows what Timo Arnall or Joi Ito or Adam Greenfield has to say, so why bother going to see them speak?
Never mind that Aula was composed for a Finnish audience for whom most of the speakers remained under- or entirely unknown. Never mind that I've struggled for years to have my viewpoints and concerns taken seriously, and I'll be damned if I'm dismissed as a has-been just as I appear to be gleaning some marginal success in the attempt. Never mind that Peter himself felt free to invite Dan Hill, Bruce Sterling and Mike Migurski to his fete, all of whom I respect tremendously (and in one or two cases even adore), but not one of whom is exactly an unexpected presence at events of this sort.
My response may strike you as petty, but I found it insulting and demotivating in the extreme. From that moment forward, I haven't wasted a breath or a second's thought on IDEA. Why should I? You already know, apparently, what I'm going to say.
As for your point, Eric, it's only necessary to compare the electricity at other conferences and gatherings I regularly attend (particuarly my cherished Design Engaged, but also Aula and Ci'Num and Conflux) to the IA summits and retreats to realize that IA is missing out, and in a fairly big way. There is such an abundance of energy and creativity out there, with a surprising amount of it directly relevant to the practice of IA constructed generously, that our inability to capture a share of it has to stand as some kind of indictment.
I think that any meaningful incentive structure has to include both, because of the heterogeneity of responses people display.
I myself respond better to carrots, to praise and positive reinforcement, so for me and people like me I can easily imagine that having one's work singled out in public, before the widest possible IA audience, would be an effective measure. Perhaps a panel at the annual Summit, dedicated to exploring the insights of the year's five top information architectures, with a cash prize for that adjudged the very best - a Webbies with teeth.
Of course, some people's psyches are geared more to fear than to hope, and if we are to capture all of the potential for excellence latent in the field we'd need to specify some sticks as well. I can easily imagine a parallel annual piece - perhaps in Boxes and Arrows! - dedicated to lambasting the year's worst efforts, those that confound their users, blunt their sponsors' initiatives and so on. (Too, we know all too well that such blunders are very often not the IA's fault. Some clients are notoriously recalcitrant. How much time could be saved if IAs were able to push back by saying that such-and-such a requested feature would be sure and land the client's project in a public pillory of the year's worst?)
I can't believe that with all the institutions we've collectively given rise to over the years, none of them has sponsored some version of at least the awards for excellence.
Christina, I'm not interested in Peter's IDEA conference in the slightest, albeit for different and entirely personal reasons. I would say this to his face (and in a sense, of course, I am), but I think he started with a sound concept, and then proceeded to alienate a lot of potentially enthusiastic supporters with a profoundly stupid post on his site about "the usual suspects." Perhaps you remember it?
The gist was that as Peter looked around him at the universe of contemporary conference speakers and saw a lot of the same names appearing on their agendas, speakers whose viewpoints he found banal and predictable, then swore that his conference would be different.
He singled out the Aula conference I happened to have been at for special condemnation, listing a bunch of names and saying, in so many words, that everyone already knows what Timo Arnall or Joi Ito or Adam Greenfield has to say, so why bother going to see them speak?
Never mind that Aula was composed for a Finnish audience for whom most of the speakers remained under- or entirely unknown. Never mind that I've struggled for years to have my viewpoints and concerns taken seriously, and I'll be damned if I'm dismissed as a has-been just as I appear to be gleaning some marginal success in the attempt. Never mind that Peter himself felt free to invite Dan Hill, Bruce Sterling and Mike Migurski to his fete, all of whom I respect tremendously (and in one or two cases even adore), but not one of whom is exactly an unexpected presence at events of this sort.
My response may strike you as petty, but I found it insulting and demotivating in the extreme. From that moment forward, I haven't wasted a breath or a second's thought on IDEA. Why should I? You already know, apparently, what I'm going to say.
As for your point, Eric, it's only necessary to compare the electricity at other conferences and gatherings I regularly attend (particuarly my cherished Design Engaged, but also Aula and Ci'Num and Conflux) to the IA summits and retreats to realize that IA is missing out, and in a fairly big way. There is such an abundance of energy and creativity out there, with a surprising amount of it directly relevant to the practice of IA constructed generously, that our inability to capture a share of it has to stand as some kind of indictment.
Similarly, what you call yourself to us isn't particularly revealing; we've known you as the ubicomp guy for a while now.
:)
Similarly, what you call yourself to us isn't particularly revealing; we've known you as the ubicomp guy for a while now.
:)
Adam - when was the last time you attended IA Summit. I don't remember you being there this year (Vancouver), know you weren't there last year (Montreal) and am not sure about 2004 (Austin). Why on earth do you feel you can judge and criticise something you didn't attend (and attending before that really doesn't count toward an argument as so many things change).
And would you really shun an otherwise interesting conference because Peterme insulted you. Ohhhh...poor you.
Funny thing about this whole thread is that there are many things that have made me cross, but I've levelled the same criticism at the 'usability' community in the past - so haven't commented as I have this internal conflict about the way other people view IA compared to the way I view usability.
And how do you guys manage to write a huge response in such a tiny edit box - I can't think when my brain is being squeezed so tight...
Adam - when was the last time you attended IA Summit. I don't remember you being there this year (Vancouver), know you weren't there last year (Montreal) and am not sure about 2004 (Austin). Why on earth do you feel you can judge and criticise something you didn't attend (and attending before that really doesn't count toward an argument as so many things change).
And would you really shun an otherwise interesting conference because Peterme insulted you. Ohhhh...poor you.
Funny thing about this whole thread is that there are many things that have made me cross, but I've levelled the same criticism at the 'usability' community in the past - so haven't commented as I have this internal conflict about the way other people view IA compared to the way I view usability.
And how do you guys manage to write a huge response in such a tiny edit box - I can't think when my brain is being squeezed so tight...
I share your frustration in many ways, but I choose to remain in the community because I think it's headed in that future direction -- and I want to be part of getting it there. That's why I presented on Game Studies and its relevance to IA last year, and published an article in the latest ASIS&T Bulletin that delves into a lot of the very things you mention. Will it reveal a great deal of ignorance on my part? Probably. But there are plenty of us who are reading and searching and learning just as hard as we can (during spare hours from our banal-IA jobs that inconveniently also put food on our tables) to suss out what this future holds, and how to structure the raw material of "information" into structures and experiences that work in this very new and ever-newer world.
I know for a fact that the majority of people who fall under the CHI rubric or any other discipline don't quite measure up to the rigorous intellectual-curiosity standard you set for IA. If I expected that of this community, I'd have given up long ago. But I have encountered *enough* of those people to keep me engaged and interested.
Whether you're 'in' or 'out' is up to you -- but personally I find your writing extremely relevant to everything I do as an IA . I think others do too.
I recall hearing word that at a conference you spoke at last year, folks said we need a new "manifesto" for IA that deals with ubicomp, etc. As I look back at the "25 Theses" that I typed up four years ago, I realize that it could be construed as missing those concerns entirely. But, for me, IA has always been principally about the larger questions you engage in your work. In fact, the Theses say one goal of IA is " to shape the environment to enable users to better communicate, collaborate and experience one another ... information architecture is about people first, and technology second." And "Just because information architecture happens mostly on the Internet today, it doesn't mean that will be the case tomorrow. "
In retrospect, knowing more now than I did, I'd have rephrased a good deal of the "manifesto" -- I'm frankly embarrassed by all the crap about "entropy" and whatnot. But it's an artifact of a particular time, and a particular set of conversations.
I just think that those conversations were, and always have been, about more than taxonomies and "narrow" IA. Maybe not everyone who uses the title "IA" is of a particularly philosophical, strategic, or academic bent. But a lot of us are.
Would I like to see more "electricity" at the IA Summit? Yeah. Absolutely.
I think it all needs a kick in the ass; I'm doing what I can do kick (and be kicked). But I can't do that unless I show up.
Cheers, and keep kicking.
I share your frustration in many ways, but I choose to remain in the community because I think it's headed in that future direction -- and I want to be part of getting it there. That's why I presented on Game Studies and its relevance to IA last year, and published an article in the latest ASIS&T Bulletin that delves into a lot of the very things you mention. Will it reveal a great deal of ignorance on my part? Probably. But there are plenty of us who are reading and searching and learning just as hard as we can (during spare hours from our banal-IA jobs that inconveniently also put food on our tables) to suss out what this future holds, and how to structure the raw material of "information" into structures and experiences that work in this very new and ever-newer world.
I know for a fact that the majority of people who fall under the CHI rubric or any other discipline don't quite measure up to the rigorous intellectual-curiosity standard you set for IA. If I expected that of this community, I'd have given up long ago. But I have encountered *enough* of those people to keep me engaged and interested.
Whether you're 'in' or 'out' is up to you -- but personally I find your writing extremely relevant to everything I do as an IA . I think others do too.
I recall hearing word that at a conference you spoke at last year, folks said we need a new "manifesto" for IA that deals with ubicomp, etc. As I look back at the "25 Theses" that I typed up four years ago, I realize that it could be construed as missing those concerns entirely. But, for me, IA has always been principally about the larger questions you engage in your work. In fact, the Theses say one goal of IA is " to shape the environment to enable users to better communicate, collaborate and experience one another ... information architecture is about people first, and technology second." And "Just because information architecture happens mostly on the Internet today, it doesn't mean that will be the case tomorrow. "
In retrospect, knowing more now than I did, I'd have rephrased a good deal of the "manifesto" -- I'm frankly embarrassed by all the crap about "entropy" and whatnot. But it's an artifact of a particular time, and a particular set of conversations.
I just think that those conversations were, and always have been, about more than taxonomies and "narrow" IA. Maybe not everyone who uses the title "IA" is of a particularly philosophical, strategic, or academic bent. But a lot of us are.
Would I like to see more "electricity" at the IA Summit? Yeah. Absolutely.
I think it all needs a kick in the ass; I'm doing what I can do kick (and be kicked). But I can't do that unless I show up.
Cheers, and keep kicking.
