Information Architecture -- A Huge Grey Area?
June 27, 2004 | 
18 Comments
This weekend I found myself thinking a little bit about what, exactly, it was I did for a living. It’s actually pretty hard to pin down.
My actual job title, down at the hospital, is “Lead Web Developer” — but that, in no way, shape or form, even begins to describe my job. Not even close, now that I’ve fully explored it.
Not that I care too much about job titles, but I’ve always considered myself a Web designer. Even when I’ve held titles like UI designer, coder, or producer. I think I’d love to go by “Web Craftsman” but it sounds a bit cheesy and is kind of like “producer” in that it doesn’t really say much of anything.
I think in the real world I’m most like a producer, but with a bit less on the project management side and a bit more on the design, or IA side.
Which brings me to the point of this post. Where, exactly, do the disciplines of Web design (or graphic design, or visual design) and Web information architecture meet?
I was having lunch with Nick the other day (welcome to Seattle buddy) and we were talking about his new job. He’s working as an Information Architect and I wanted to get a feel for what he did on a day-to-day basis.
Turns out it’s similar in many ways to (some of) what I do. Where it kind of threw me is when he began to describe things that I would have always called “design.” Things like detailed wire-framing and prototyping.
Granted, I work on a small team and therefore have to wear quite a few hats, but I’ve always thought I had a handle on where my IA hat left off and my design hat began. Turns out the rest of the world might have a different view.
Who knew?
I’ve always thought of IA for the Web as being pretty much limited to everything before the layout and after user research (there’s another grey area — I’ll leave that for another post). You know? Things like use-cases, content inventories, taxonomy, labeling, site maps, and functional specs.
I do see very simple wire-framing as part of the IA process, but here is where the area really gets grey for me.
Maybe it’s because I’m used to having to do all of this, and more. However, the majority of my job falls right in there — into the grey area and the areas around it.
The most excellent Polar Bear book identifies this area as the province of the mysterious “Interaction Designer” — maybe that’s what I should call myself? Except it, too, seems a bit on the grey side, and not a great fit because I also code and do usability-type stuff as well.
If a Web project goes:
Goals -> Usability/IA -> “Visual” Design -> Coding -> QA -> Usability
(Not all of them do…but that’s another story.)
Then I’m pretty much in there though most of the project in a hands-on kind of way. Actually doing much of the work, from start to finish. I think this might be kind of unique, given the kinds of projects I usually work on. I guess maybe that is why I’ve got a hard time figuring out how others see IA.
Where do you see a Web information architect fitting in to this process? Are they Web designers who don’t do the “visual” aspect of design? Usability specialists that bridge the gap between user and designer? Something else all together?
Filed under: IA and Usability
Comments
1. Mike D. said:
I think that just like most disciplines on the web, you will find people who do “I/A and something else” and “just I/A”. I’ve worked in situations where:
I think it’s great when you have a professional I/A person relieving you of those duties, but at the same time, I’ve found it can lead to much more rigid design sometimes. When you have a visual person doing the I/A, the wireframes tend to be a lot less homogenous. One of the reasons for this is that a professional I/A person who has little design experience is just going to be using Visio to set up rudimentary grids. Now, yes, as a designer you should be able to take these grids and re-arrange them to fit your fancy, but often times the grids are “signed off on by the client” and any changes you want to make can come as a surprise during the design approval process.
Conversely, when designers do their own I/A, they can bring an unhealthy bias of form over function, so this must also be mitigated.
I think that in the end, the I/A function can be carried out successfully by several different types of people, but it should definitely be looked at as a separate discipline and not just a natural function of the designer.
Posted on June 27, 2004 08:43 PM | #
2. Gene said:
If you look at JJG’s nine pillars diagram, the IA is right in the center (as abstract design). But, IMO, who does IA, what tasks they perform, and where they fit in the process depends on the team and the project. For smaller teams/projects, one person usually wears the IA/ID/usability guy hat. And the roles kind of blend together. For larger projects, you might be able to justify an IA who focuses solely on taxonomy, metadata and search.
I hear the title User Experience Architect is on the rise. ;)
Posted on June 27, 2004 08:58 PM | #
3. Geoffrey said:
We are having similar discussions at work involving deliverables and how they are developed. The crucial point at which we transition from Information Architecture to Graphic Design and what role the client plays in it. Wireframes tend to live in that grey area where layout is merely alluded to, and I always find that clients seem to get a bit confused. The easy solution is to remove the client from that step, but I think that’s worse than confusing them.
In doing some research we have decided to split the wireframe into two deliverables. The first step is based on the excellent work done by Dan Brown which we then follow up with much tighter wireframes. Dan’s concept of creating a Page Description Document is a great solution and a perfect way to keep the client involved.
But yes, working in a small firm I too get to wear all the hats. It certainly makes it more interesting.
Posted on June 27, 2004 10:38 PM | #
4. Mindaugas said:
Interesting topic! I see similar situation with my web designer position. I do IA, design, coding and partly project management. But I don’t do JavaScript and I don’t really study it deeply as other disciplines take all my time (and I will need JavaScript maybe once or twice a year if need at all, so I wouldn’t be a pro here anyway). But there’s always a requirement to know JavaScript well for web designer position.
Posted on June 28, 2004 01:51 AM | #
5. s t e f said:
Hmmm, that’s a good, big, huge question.
Officially I’m a “new media consultant” inside our company, which means I know a little about everything, web-wise.
But most of the day I end up being either a support technician on image optimisation, CMS manipulation, etc., or a user advocate, a usability expert, an IA, a graphics PITA for my artist (who doesn’t ever mention or even think of usability when she ‘designs’ – I mentioned it the other day and she went ‘usability? Oh, I don’t mind that’), or a technical supervisor on our intranet server (in plain words: something goes wrong? call stef, he’ll know what to do), or a plain, ‘simple’ accessible and usable HTML+CSS coder.
That’s pretty much what most of us did a few years back, before the web became specialised as it is today, isn’t it. I really can’t find a good term to sum it all up, except ‘web person’, or ‘web craftsman’, but obviously for the same reasons as you, I won’t ask for the title. It *does* sounds awkward, although it would be the only good definition for the job.
I’ll stick to “new media consultant”. That’s very show-offy to my ears, but I’ve come to believe that’s the only way people vaguely understand what our day-to-day job is.
(Actually my french title would be literally translated as ‘New Technologies for Information and Communication Consultant’, but it’s just because ‘new media’ as a whole got a nifty unpronounceable acronym, NTIC, due to marketing-oriented people in one state office or the other, a few years ago – it sounds even more show-offy, doesn’t it?)
Posted on June 28, 2004 02:24 AM | #
6. Farhan said:
Definitely a toughie. Right now I’m a web team manager, we have a couple of editors and a couple of developers (I end up doing some editing and some developing as well).
I find us all doing a bit of Information architecture. In that it’s important for the editors to make sure the architecture makes sense from an editorial perspective and the developers using their knowledge of usability making sense of the architecture from a user interaction perspective.
Totally hear you on the not knowing what to call my role. I try and do a little but of everything, and I think the challenge is to find something thats comprehensive but at the same time meaningful and not obscure or vague. Good luck and if you think of anything let me know!
Posted on June 28, 2004 02:32 AM | #
7. benjamin said:
I like “new media consultant”, though it kind of sounds like you don’t do any actual work, you know, just “consulting” on matters.
I’ve only been actively doing web design for a few years, but I’ve always looked at it from the entire start-to-finish proccess. I prefer to do my own IA because I feel too left out of the decision making proccess, making the rest of my job too rigid. I find myself defending usuability to a few designers at my job and at the same time defending design to some of the more abstract “we only got this many click-throughs” people. I also do the visual design, taking into account everything else, and the coding, whether it be XHTM/CSS or doing a fully Actionscripted Flash site.
Since I work at an advertising firm, where most of the art directors come from a more traditional (i.e. print) media, I also do serve as a consultant, or “the web guy”, whenever somebody has a question.
Posted on June 28, 2004 07:19 AM | #
8. Rob Cameron said:
None of the companies I’ve worked for would have any idea what Information Architecture is. I’ve always been “Webmaster.” Anything related to the website becomes my responsibility anyway - they wouldn’t be able to comprehend having 1 person spec out the IA, another come up with a design, another code everything … their response would be “isn’t that we pay you for?”
I know no one here understands how much actually goes into building a good website. They think of this position more as “the guy who know hows to write HTML,” not the guy who has to think about how people are going to use the site, make information easy for them to access, give them a memorable shopping experience and try to get them to come back again.
I end up wearing all the hats so I guess “master” is a good title for what I do. :)
Posted on June 28, 2004 09:09 AM | #
9. Adrian said:
This post echoes what Eris has been talking about. I have been called many things, some even relevant! My favorite was ‘Code Mechanic’ which related to my previous work on diesel engines. Outside of groups like this one, I doubt that there is any point in using anything but Webmaster, Web Designer or Web Developer. Our local bar has no online regulars, so they have no idea at all. I have tried out various labels and only those three conveyed anything to the non web-savvy.
Surely the only reason for any label is to give outsiders an idea of your occupation. Insiders already have a good understanding of the variety of skills needed in this arena.
Posted on June 28, 2004 09:29 AM | #
10. sTEVEN sTREIGHT said:
I refer to myself as a Web Usability Analyst and Content Writer.
But on a current project committee, I am also a Marketing Strategizer and Information Architect. The web development committee has a Marketing Manager, Web Host/Developer, Web Master, and other vaguely identified participants.
I am an IA due to the fact that no one else knows how to re-organize the web site information and revise the page section labels.
This is similar to my former days as a Direct Marketing Copywriter, when the client would hand me a pile of information about the product, some focus group or competitor research, a few pieces of printed material they used in the past and were happy with…
…then I had to organize it all, come up with a new marketing approach, and devise new headlines and body copy for all the components.
This sometimes even went so far as suggesting new features for the engineering department to add to the product, new markets to try to sell to, and new offers to customers.
No matter what extra work I performed, I continued to call myself a Direct Marketing Copywriter.
My suggestion is to call yourself whatever it is you most enjoy doing, whatever you have the most expertise in, whatever clients/employers will best understand, or whatever you want to do more of…or some title that encompasses all these.
Nothing has a perfect title.
Think of all the ways music is described: hardcore, heavy metal, death metal, hip hop, rap, punk, post-punk, pop punk, soft rock, lite rock, acid rock, art rock, folk rock, country rock, grunge, boy band, electro, rave, techno, jungle, ambient, etc. etc. And none of them adequately describe many bands.
Posted on June 28, 2004 11:18 AM | #
11. Dave Mo said:
Funny thing, I was just looking for a place to post a question regarding Information Architecture!
Actually, I think that the term Information Architect (Architecture) (I/A) has gone way past what you folks are describing here as your day-to-day duties.
My sister-in-law works for one of the “largest computer companies in the world” as an “Information Architect Engineer”. She started coding HTML for intranets for her little section of the corporation back in the early-mid 90s. She happened to be in the right place at the right time when the corporation started to realize the power of accessing and communicating information via the Web. She went from a mid-level administrative assistant to an engineer level position literally overnight.
She’s currently spearheading a project that creates taxonomies and organizational structures for the wide array of “information artifacts” on the corporations intranets, extranets, portals and “e-business” sites throughout the enterprise around the world.
BTW, “information artifacts” can be ANY of a number of things that contain information that may be of use and need to be accessed. It could be documents, Web pages, image files, raw data, processes, applications, etc. It’s also the hot new concept in I/A circles.
She does very little of the kind of work any of us do as I understand it, but deals with designing and organizating the content and info that goes on the corporations Web sites. She says that it’s pretty much Library Science in the basic concept of how I/A works.
So I guess you could call yourselves “Information Architects”, and I guess we are in our own little way, but I think the title has already become to mean quite a bit more than just designing Web sites or coding pages. I think unless we truly understand and work at this new, higher level the title now has, we’re going to come of sounding and looking pretentious and foolish. Let’s see if we can come up with a better one if we really need it.
I guess thought that my original question is sort of being answered in the comments here, which was how do you folks deal with the concept of I/A? Do you have a defined directory organization and content structure that you use when you create sites or does the client tell you how they want that defined? I’d like to see more information on this aspect of Web design on this level in these kinds of forums.
Thanks.
Posted on June 28, 2004 01:18 PM | #
12. Keith said:
Dave – I hate to confuse the issue here, as your comment was a good one. But, and it’s a big but…
I do this. It’s actually a pretty big part of my job. As well the sites I do this for are HUGE. I also do quite a bit of this:
That is my point. I also design and code pages.
What do I call myself?
Posted on June 28, 2004 01:56 PM | #
13. daniel harvey said:
At my place of work – www.rga.com – we have no titular division between people that perform tasks around interaction design and information architecture. Obviously some people have natural tendencies or skillsets that sway more toward one side than another but at the end of the day we could be called upon (and often are) to create wireframes, taxonomies, functional specs, usability test plans, what have you.
Interaction designer is what we use.
I personally find any of the “user experience” themed monikers to be overreaching. Everyone contributes to the user experience. It’s not one person’s job after all to guarantee a good one.
Visual or graphic designers, while they often deviate from suggested layouts in our wireframes, are called upon to focus on issues involving typography, imagery, logo treatments, etc.
I don’t think we’ve ever had much real confusion of labor between departments or even within our ID group.
Posted on June 28, 2004 08:26 PM | #
14. s t e f said:
Benjamin: Oh yeah, ‘webmaster’, too. Actually that’s what people outside our field call us in the company.
We’re not even the ‘internal web agency’, we’re ‘the webmastering service’.
It’s a matter of proportions, I guess. Out of the field people couldn’t care less about how we call ourselves.
It’s like when you go to the doctor. It always ends up as ‘I work on computers’. There’s nothing more general than that, is there… ;)
Posted on June 28, 2004 11:46 PM | #
15. Nollind Whachell said:
Hehe, no wonder I never got hired back into the web industry, even people who work in these jobs don’t know how to “classify” themselves. Imagine what a hard time the companies who are looking for new employees are having. That’s probably why whenever I looked at job postings, all I saw was jobs focused on the backend (programming) or the frontend (design). Jobs that melded or fused the front and back together just didn’t exist, yet I saw these roles as the most important, yet they seemed to get the least recognition or hiring interest. Programming seems to be the big hiring deal of the day even today but what good is the backend if doesn’t meld with the frontend design and create a good experience for the clients customers?
It’s funny because I remember talking to one lady within a great web firm in town and she was amazed at the work and projects I’d done (I’ve worked with companies like Sierra, Vivendia, Activision, Konami, and Paramount Pictures on a lot of computer gaming product sites). She called me a “conductor” who “weaved” the aspect of project together like a conductor weaves the different parts of a band together to create a beautiful piece of music. And yet, she didn’t have a space for me because their company already had one person who somewhat did what I did (they were a small 4 to 6 person unit). That was about as close as I got to getting rehired within a firm. Of course, the firm that understands my importance already has someone, whereas another firm doesn’t need me because they don’t have such a position and don’t see the need for one.
Posted on June 29, 2004 09:58 AM | #
16. Dave Mo said:
Well Keith, as Pee-Wee Herman once said, “Someone always has a big but!”
Seriously though, from talking to my sister-in-law it seems to me that the term “Information Architect” is quickly being defined as a specialized aspect of Web design and seems to deal with a higher level of the whole Web-based information concept. At least in her situation. In your situation, you obviously do a lot of everything, from graphics to the “architecture” of Web site content design and organization, so that makes it hard to pigeonhole your title. But I what I think is happening is that the term “Information Architect/Architecture” is rapidly being associated with a very specialized and high level of Web design technology. You may indeed find yourself concentrating more and more on that aspect of the design process as time goes on. Whether or not that’s what you want to do more and more of may ultimately define what you put on your business cards.
I’m not anywhere near your level in the profession that’s for sure, which is why come to sites like yours and Zeldman’s etc., I’m trying to glean some knowledge and understanding of how things work in this relatively new field of Web design. I’m discovering that it’s evolving so rapidly that it everywhere I look there’s another layer of complexity being added and a new definition being applied to it. It’s exciting and confounding at the same time.
I already had about 15 years of experience in the graphics industry when I first got into “Desktop Publishing” back in the Eighties. It was easy then to be a designer, typesetter, and printer all in one. What soon happened was everything started to specialize again. Eventually people weren’t hiring Desktop Publishers, they wanted “PhotoShop Technician” or “PageMaker Guru” or “Illustrator Specialist”, etc. I think the same thing might be occurring now in terms of specialization and definitions.
So maybe trying to slap a definition or title on what you do is really not worth a lot of time worrying about. Or at least, if you feel you do need some way to pin down your job title, just keep in mind that it will certainly change or be redefined by the marketplace sometime in the near future.
For me, when people ask, I just tell them I’m a designer and leave it at that. It’s a broad and generic title but it leaves a lot of wiggle room for specific definition. I certainly design stuff and I create stuff too, for the Web, print and just for fun, but it doesn’t really pigeonhole me into a specific corner if I don’t want it to.
Hey! what the hell, just get a dozen versions of your business card printed up, each with a different title! Why not? When the suits ask if you’re a “Information Architect” hand ‘em that one. Collect all 12! Be the first on your block to get ‘em all! (I actually did that once.)
So anyway, whatever you decide to put on your business cards, I really would like to see more information out there about the “Information Architecture” aspect of Web design on your level, like I said above. It obviously seems to becoming a bigger and bigger part of the whole design process. I’m getting a pretty good handle on the whole CSS thing and standards I understand pretty well too. I need to start looking at the higher level of the puzzle now.
Thanks for sharing your time and knowledge with all of us.
Posted on June 29, 2004 10:05 AM | #
17. [m] said:
Web Architect.
That’s the most apropriate(sp?) label I could think of.
Posted on June 30, 2004 01:43 PM | #
18. David Gratton said:
Keith,
I think the question of what you call yourself or your title is simply dependent on what you are doing at the time. On small jobs, most of us wear multiple hats: from Strategic Consultant to Information Architect to Creative Director to Programmer. On larger jobs we generally break up those rolls.
I think it is easier to illustrate with an ‘older’ industry. When we produce a corporate video, depending on the budget, I am producer, writer, sound editor, and director. On larger projects, I am only the producer. Though I understand what goes into every step of the project. Only on the largest project, can I give myself one title.
I think the reason why we in the ‘Web Industry’ have difficulty with defining titles or describing what we ‘do’ is that we as an industry have yet to accurately define our job descriptions within the process of Web development.
Taking my video production example: I can advertise a position to hire a “Director” for a job, and I know exactly what kind of resumes I will get in my inbox. The Director will know exactly what his or her responsibilities will be in the production.
Not so, with Web Development. If I hire a Creative Director, IA, or programmer, I will need to detail their rolls within that specific production, because the titles themselves offer no insight to the job they will need to do for me. I suspect as this industry matures the job titles will eventually correlate a lot closer to the actual duties performed. As Dave Mo has alluded to, this may already be happening with IA.
Posted on July 5, 2004 08:02 AM | #
Comments are now closed