informationsarkitektur.info

What was information architecture

Attention is a sparse resource, in particular in the blogsphere, so I guess when Joshua Porter declared that information architecture is dying, he was partly angling for attention, provoking, and making a statement. And he sure got attention.

I’m not the one to bring IA to its grave, but I think the topic is relevant in some respect. In the IA community related discussions have been going on. E.g. at the Euro IA summit this year, where a major topic in the corridors were, whether IAs were dividing into two groups strategists and “?? IAs”. A spin-off of Joshua Porter’s post has (yet again) opened a discussion about the relevance of the title of information architect (see David Armano’s blog). The most interesting debate on this topic can be found on Adam Greenfield’s blog (be sure to read the comments, where many of the nobilities of the community express their view).

Summing up I’m surprised how relatively many people who seem to have a problem with the title of information architect, express frustration with the way the trade is evolving, and seemingly find it difficult to identify with the IA community. Check out the vivid debates for yourself.

I, for my part, believe the IA trade is falling apart or dividing into multiple disciplines, as I have here in previous posts and over at Armano’s blog. It will be exciting to see if the third edition of the polar bear book will appear as the bible collecting the crowd of all IAs, or it will be a cry from the grave. 

Tags and their use(-lessness)

The other day I was looking for pictures of people shopping. To be more specific: A picture of women in a shopping situation, e.g. at a sale, in a warehouse pulling down clothes. You know the scene. To find such a picture I looked at Flickr, Corbis, Yahoo! Images, and Google Images. And I did an interesting observation. Perhaps not novel to power users of Flicker, and folks who study social tagging, but I never thought of it before.

It didn’t surprise me, that it was pretty difficult to find relevant material with Google and Yahoo! They provided a lot of ROT, but what they dig up for me was relevant considering the typical search terms a user in my situation would use: ‘shopping’, ‘mess’, ‘queue’, ‘women’, etc. Corbis was spot on in their results. Some was not exactly relevant, but clicking “Search by Keywords” would bring up even more relevant results. What was interesting was Flicker. When I searched here, I noticed that the results provided me with images showing situations where the photographer was out shopping. The search terms did not match the subject in the of picture.

I don’t know how to search on Flicker, if you are searching for what’s in the picture, and not for what the photographer was doing, when she/he took the picture, or how she/he interpreted his own role in that particular situation, where the picture was taken. Perhaps I don’t understand Flicker. I’m not a regular user. Perhaps I don’t know how to use Flicker search. But to me, Flicker tags are useless.

The future of information architecture

In my not so resent comment on the Euro IA Summit comment, I prommised to return with an other comment on Eric Reiss’ presentation, “Seven Trends In IA”, which I think was one of the better presentations at the summit in Berlin.

The seven trends were, as Eric sees it are:

• Websites no longer live in business isolation
• Websites are becoming more focused
• Websites are now truly multimedia
• A) Sitemaps are dying… as traditional deliverable
• B) Sitemaps are alive and well… as supplementary navigation
• Customization is dead/personalization lives
• Site search is maturing… slowly
• IA is not always part of the job title

It struck me that the trends are mostly about how the field of IA is developing, and not so much about tactical tendencies. Sure, some of his thoughts are about applied IA. E.g. how sites are becoming more focused, more multimedia, and sitemap navigation. But with all respect, I find that it’s trivial observations, compared to the more interesting observations Eric has on the development of the trade. This is proven by the fact, that what generated debate and discussions was his statement about IA as a job title, and the information architect’s role in the high level or strategic part of the development process.

As I recall it, Eric described the IA as sort of en encyclopaedist. Some of us, like me, are doing high level strategic consulting, focusing on e.g. user and business needs, and the consequences these have for the final solution. Others may do more tactical IA, be it with a focus on interaction design, information handling within a system, etc. I completely agree. (Though my representation here are simplified). Now, Eric predicted, as a trend, that strategic, high-level IA is being “taken over” by other people, who do not have a background in IA. Also, some of the other trends hinted at, that strategic IA is becoming a still more important part of the IA’s job, and that we should strengthen our skills in this area. But also, that we should exert our influence so that we are not being run down by the non-IA strategic consultants, or forget where we came from. Here I have to disagree. Nowadays the development of digital information environments, be it various kinds of websites, intranets, or other information systems that IAs may be working on, are so complex, that we have to find a way to work with people with different backgrounds. The days where the IA, as an omnipotent spider in the web, could optimize her or his skills to understand the complex business and consumerism marketplace of the 21^st century, the complex technologies handling information in still more complex IT architectures, as well as have at least a superficial understanding of “little IA” is gone. Like we have learned (hopefully) to accept, that we have colleagues who know web design better than we do, we should learn to accept, that there are people who understand change management, business, enterprise, and strategic management, as well as IT architecture better than we will ever be able to do.

The trend, as I see it, is that the development of digital information environments will become more complex. And that we will have to learn to let go of the role as the mastermind, and find a new and more collaborative role.

EuroIA 2006 Berlin revisited

I finally find the time to share my view on the EuroIA Summit 2006 which was held in Berlin a few weeks ago.

This was the second summit EuroIA summit for me, and like the first one, I think it was a great success. 

There are different reasons for going to a conference. Some will go to learn and get inspired by the speakers, some will go to get input and a kick from meeting other IA’s or folks working with information, and yet others will go for the networking. I went mostly for the networking, meet new people from other countries, and perhaps get a new angle on my work as consultant. To be frank, I hadn’t checked the programme before I registered.

And I did get what I came for. I did meet a lot of nice and clever folks. People I hadn’t met before from Italy, Germany, Ireland, and Poland, and I got to met people from the UK, Norway, Belgium, whom I spoke with last year. I could ask questions, which I can use directly in ongoing projects, and discuss topics I’ve had on my mind lately. A great opportunity, not available elsewhere.

Regarding the programme; well, as I said, that wasn’t all that important to me. Fortunately I must say. I think there was room for improvement for a number of the presenters. Let me say, that there have been complaints about the form of the Summit (more on that in a future posting). I think the Summit was great in that respect. But some of the speakers were not very well prepared, considering they have had quite a lot of time, and that a presentation at such a summit is not just an average presentation. To mention a few:

Olly Wright was to talk about the connection between IA and strategy. Very interesting from my point of view. I’d expect him to talk about just that, but with an outset in the field of IA. Rather he gave us a quick introduction to the business consultant’s tool box. Without going into detail or offering any usable hands-on advise. I was like a turbo skimming of any introduction book to the trade of consulting. But the connection to the field of IA lacked. I can understand why. When you get deep into business consulting, you loose the connection to “traditional” IA. I know I have, to some extent. Perhaps that’s Olly’s problem.

Later that day there was a presentation by Almar van der Krogt on “Virreal Architecture”. I will not even comment on that presentation. I have the greatest respect for the committee, who have picked out the presenters. But what ever happened when they let him on the podium?! I think it’s great with a strange, novel, and new angle on things. Stewart Brand offered that when he was key note speaker at the US IA summit in 2003. But you got to have some calibre, novel ideas, and keep that helicopter view to offer just that. van der Krogt had none of that. A petty, as his ideas may be interesting.

The next day there was a special kind of presentation; “Wicked Workshop”, hosted by Jason Mesut and Warren Hutchinson. They wanted to discuss how we, as consultants, can use workshops engage the clients. However the choose to illustrate this by turning the room, with 120+ listeners into several workshops. And that just didn’t work. A key premise for success for any workshop is, that the participants know, that they contribute to some sort of relevant project, which was not the case here. I guess that was one of the reasons, that people was only semi-engaged. Therefore the message didn’t come across; they picked a format not suitable for the audience.

But – several of the presentations were excellent. I think Jared Folkmann’s talk on “Customer Experience Framework” was brilliant. Also Andrea Resmini, Emanuele Quintarelli, Luca Rosati’s presentation on social tagging was very interesting (in spite of some obvious “challenges” regarding presentation and language skills). And as always, Eric Reiss had some great input on the trends in IA. I’ll comment on that in a future post.

I’ll wrap up before I run out of power on my brand new Toshiba Tecra M5 laptop. Summing up: EuroIA 2006 was a great success. I've dwelled a bit on the not-so-good presentations, but I'll get back with details on the great stuff too.

I think those of us who didbother to mingle had the best EuroIA Summit. I was a bit disappointed with some of my friends from Denmark, who would sit for themselves most of the time. Come on folks! We meet once a month. Get out - live a little.

Yahoo! Mail BETA goes live

Yahoo Mail BETA has gone live today. However only for invited users. It’s very much like a traditional desktop email client, with a folder pane to the left, and a list of mails and preview pane to the right. The preview pane can be disabled.

In the right column you will also find links to Yahoo! Contacts, Yahoo! Calendar, and Yahoo! Notepad. Also you have access to the RSS feeds you may subscribe to. If you click a feed, it will be shown in the right column. From there you can click any link, and the page will load in a new window. I.e. an integrated RSS reader in Yahoo! Mail.

As I see it, this is an other Yahoo! effort to integrate the many Yahoo! services. From Yahoo! Mail you will get access to the key Yahoo! services. Other such efforts from Yahoo! have been Yahoo! 360, My Web, and the new Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. From Yahoo! Mail BETA you will get easy access to these services too.

Yahoo! Mail BETA has been awaited for long, and users have been excited too see what new Yahoo! would bring. I’m happy to see, that Yahoo! haven’t been too innovative, and come up with something Gmail-like. I believe in conventions and integration, so to me, Yahoo! Mail BETA is good news. Looking forward to trying it out in detail.

IA work will always have implications on how information is perceived. Not only in the way we make navigation systems and page schematics. But more important in the way we categorize information in taxonomies and when we build onthologies.

Recently there was a story in Marketplace on NPR. Here we were told how a search for “abortion” at Amazon, they would return related searches “adoption” “if these walls could talk” and “pro-life”. According to Amazon this isn't due to politics but “hyperactive technology.” I’m sure it isn’t sure to politics. It’s due to IAs who isn’t conscious of there ethical responsibility.

The story was mention by Victor Lombardi on the IAI mailing list. There were little response, and most where wisecracks or unrelated to the key issue: How can this happen, and what’s the consequences?

The ethics in IA have been brought up from time to time. Andrew Dillon wrote about it in his IA column in 2002, and I talked about it in the five minute madness at the Euro IA Summit 2005. But the response in the community has been sparse. I remember Eric Reiss shared with me after the madness session, that he believed I was more or less alone with my concerns. (He and have had many a good talk s on the topic afterwards).

Why and when is this important? Many of us work with complex IA issues affecting many people. I’m not thinking about major e-commerce sites like Amazon. I’m thinking about those of us working with e-gov, with defense and security, and with public safety. E.g. the resent automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) programme in UK. But also enterprise wide projects effecting thousands of employees.

I think it is pathetic that most of the posts on the Sigia-l and IAI members list are about petty issues like how we organize us, define IA, and protect our field. I predict that years from now we will ask what we were thinking when we where setting up the integrated systems that we come to dependent on. Why and how did we put people in these particular boxes? How could we not predict that there would be consequences.

The adolescent information architect

The community of information architecture has always been preoccupied with searching for a unique identity. That’s not so strange, as IA is a new thing, connected primarily to a new media in new technologies. Fair to ask “who am I”?

In its infancy this search was charming. It was exciting to explore the boundaries. Like a young child, discovering new worlds.

However, when children become of age and grow to become adolescents, they are not always so charming anymore. They tend to become a little annoying in there searching. They tend to push it to the limit. Adolescents start building social networks, which they use to explore the world and its boundaries. Often you see the sparks when these groups meet, and clash.

If you ask me, information architecture has reached adolescence.

In the last year or so I’ve noticed how information architects have picked up the search for an identity. However we as community have lost some of the charming innocence of the early years. We don’t explore IA as a team. Members of the community now have some sort of self-perception, and have formed small networks. They have there own convictions and agendas. From their own fixed places they (or we) explore the world and will argue how they/we see the world. A lot of energy goes into marking territories, discussing how to setup organizations, and talking about how they should work, and which role they should play.

I wonder if this is just a natural development to be expected and accepted. A period “we” have to go through as a community. I have learned though, that even though I find it tedious, we have to deal with this identification-bit. In my daily work as consultant, it is pressing to be able to come up with some sort of definition or description of what IA is. And a high level definition is no good in that context. As the web and marketplace becomes more complex in these years, this becomes even more urgent. But how can it be done in a sober way? How can we communicate across boundaries? How can we establish contacts and connections to communities who is interested in IA, but from angle? I’d love to see this happen, but observing the lists and the way the community is developing, my hopes are not high. Ideas anyone?

Enterprise Architecture process model - Workable EA

Wouldn’t it be great if you could go to all the great and interesting conferences? One of the conferences I’ve never been to, but would like to attend is HICSS, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. And not because of the location.

I just read Mirja Pulkkinen’s proceeding from the 39th conference, 2006. It was called ”Systematic Management of Architectural Decisions in Enterprise Architecture Planning. Four Dimensions and Three Abstraction Levels” (PDF, 150 kb.). In many ways a continuation of last years proceeding: ”EA Planning, Development and Management Process for Agile Enterprise Development” (PDF, 190 kb.), presented with Ari Hirvonen.

Essentially she discusses how one can develop an effective and workable process model for EA projects, which supports decision making. Like in the proceeding from the 38th conference, she’s stressing, that the detailed ZIFA framework is too detailed and academic for real life projects. She suggests the four dimension approach: Business architecture; information architecture; systems architecture; and technology architecture. (Information architecture here would be what I call enterprise information architecture. Not as defined by CMS Review in their glossary, and by others. They derive EIA from ’information architecture’ - in a classical sense. EIA imo should be derived from ’enterprise architecture’ – in a classical sense. But I agree with colleagues around the world; why spend time and energy defining the damn thing). Additionally she’s also simplifying the levels of the framework, focusing on the enterprise level, domain level and the systems level.

Pulkkinen’s proceeding is a good read. I’d like to see a graphical presentation of her ideas. Something like James Melzer’s excellent work. I don’t have such skills though. But perhaps someone will take on the challenge.

Show me your book collection, and I’ll tell you who you are

During 2005 the Norwegian IA Meetup group ”Oslo Information Architecture MeetUp Group” became ”UXnet-MeetUp”. However, from what I can tell, the members are pretty much the same. So – what’s in a name, you might ask? I think you can tell from the recent meeting they had. It was very interesting and a good idea; a ”guide to the book jungle”. Members would bring and recommend their favorite books. Our friends in Oslo brought and recommended books focusing on UX, design usability, wayfinding, and tools and tips for the consultant. (Full list on Are Halland's blog). No books on technology, content management, LIS, XML/SGML or enterprise (information) architecture.

I’m not very familiar with UXnet. The mission statement says:

"UXnet was formed to help make connections between the people and organizations that represent User Experience disciplines, and to encourage interchange and cooperation..."

Not much different from IAI's, however with a somewhat broader focus. Some would argue an other focus. The main difference perhaps is the fact that UXnet has local chapters, and ”…is aimed at fulfilling UXnet's mission at a grass roots level”.

I must admit all these umbrella organizations confuse me. And I find my self asking: ”What can they do for me?”. Basically I’m interested in meeting my colleagues once a month. MeetUp is perfect for that.

But what about the pan European community? What would it take to build, cement, and maintain this? Do we really need a formal organization like e.g. IAI, UXnet, ASIS&T, CM Pros, UPA or IIID? I don’t think so. A web site with a forum or a BBS and a mailing list ought to be enough. My concern is, that if we had a pan European “Guide to the book jungle” people would bring all sorts of books. Luckily! But it would make it difficult to establish a meaningful organization that could embody everyone. Certainly none of the existing (North American) organizations are broad enough to embrace a European IA community, not preoccupied with defining the damn thing.

New Enterprise Architecture forum

A new enterprise architecrure forum has been born. That is, at the time of writing it's four weeks old, but it's new to me. And I'm delighted to see that in the forum they have a category for information architecture. And it's number three in the list! On the site you'll find plenty of material and features. I belive this could could become a fine and living forum for discussion of enterprise architecture. And maybe also enterprise information architecture in the true meaning of the word. Not the way the term is used in the information architecture community.