Information Architecture Is Not Dead… But It Might Be Stuck
Published November 27th, 2006 in UX News, Experience Design, Careers, Information Architecture, Experience Planning
Has the bell tolled for information architecture? Most certainly not. Is it experiencing some growing pains? I think so.
Information Architecture is not dead, but I think it may be stuck and that may be the reason that some leading thinkers on information architecture are feeling a little out of sorts lately. Not that they’re stuck, but they’re frustrated with what they see as the subject matters inability to evolve as of late.
So, information architecture is stuck. While this implies a problem with the practice, I’m going to suggest that it really has more to do with the practitioners. The practitioners are stuck and the conversation is not evolving. Not enough of us are getting uncomfortable and knocking down fences to reach out to other people from other fields and engaging in meaningful conversation about design and business problems. The conversation is stuck and we need to evolve.
I submitted a proposal for next year’s IA Summit to talk about experience planning because I wanted to share my perspective with the attendees that IA is great but there are other opportunities out here for us to consider. I’d love to have a product designer or grahpic design come and do a talk at the IA Summit; heck, I’d love for a creative director from an agency to come in talk at the summit. The problem is that IA’s tend to be too self-referential - and that’s reflected in the conversations we’re having. I’m even reviewing proposals for the summit this year. I reviewed about dozen over the weekend and only one of them featured a topic that was not focused on typical IA problems (taxonomy, deliverables, content management, etc.). That exceptional topic was related to what IA practitioners could learn from visual designers.
If you’re looking to get up-to-speed on some of the back-story, read Adam Greenfield’s post, IA or not IA, that sparked some passionate commentary amongst the IA community. Also read Christina Wodtke’s post, Why am I so angry?, where she shares her thoughts on becoming Christina 2.0 and the conflict that has generated between her and her “favorite pair of jeans”, IA.
Joshua Porter added some more fuel to this conversation when, last Tuesday, he posted his Thoughts on the Impending Death of Information Architecture. His central thesis is that IA has been outmoded because it models information as opposed to relationships. Joshua even goes so far as to suggest that Relationship Architecture may be a more appropriate name. In a comment related to that post, Austin Giovella challenges Joshua by suggesting that:
IA is all about relationships. It’s nothing but relationships: relationships between people, between data, between information, between processes, organizations, markets, products, services, cultures, whatever.
David Armano also picked up on the discussion today and asked his readers to consider this:
Now before you take either side of the debate regarding the role and future of Information Architects (IA’s), I would ask this question. Does the term accurately represent what a (insert title here) does? Or if you are an IA, do you feel it does?
David’s question is a good one and highlights that this recent conversation is also about the meanings associated with the title, information architect, and the practice, information architecture.
If anything, we may be witnessing the death of the information architect as a job title; not information architecture as a practice. Not to oversimplify, but we can probably boil this down to three primary reasons:
- Information Architecture is something you do, not something you are
- People who once identified themselves as Information Architects are now looking for more meaningful expressions to describe what they do - whether it’s interaction architect or experience designer
- Information Architecture, generally, attracts people who are lateral thinkers that approach experience design challenges with a holistic view of the problem; these people are starting to move on and are looking to tackle problems bigger than designing experience and organizing information - for example, they’re becoming publishers or talking about product design
What do you think? If you’re an information architect, how does this align to your current experience? Non-IA’s - what are you seeing from the sidelines?
15 Responses to “Information Architecture Is Not Dead… But It Might Be Stuck”
- 1 Pingback on Nov 29th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
- 2 Trackback on Dec 21st, 2006 at 8:39 am
- 3 Pingback on Dec 18th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Leave a Reply
Search
Subscribe to Experience Planner's RSS Feed
Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed
Scott,
Great post. I posted this comment over at L E as well:
Just read your post. Good points all around, though I believe there is a tight bond between who you are and what you do. How else can you explain the passion around this topic?
Why call this blog Experience Planner? Why do I describe my practice as “Digital Experience Design” vs. simply saying I am a Creative Director? I do reference myself as a CD, but if I want to get more specific to the right audience—I say that my field is Digital Experience Design.
It all can seem silly, but at the end of the day we want to refer to ourselves in a way that is most meaningful. My guess is that some in the field feel that the IA label has lost it’s meaning—or needs to be a subset of something larger. Maybe, maybe not. I look at it from the individual perspective—if I tell someone I am a Creative Director for a marketing firm and they ask if I work on commercials, I would probably explain a little more what it is that I actually do.
I agree 100 percent with your observation of IA’s needing to engage in larger conversations. The field is too inwardly focused. To the outsider it seems almost cult-like complete with high priests and priestesses. It’s not inclusive, it’s exclusive. Maybe it’s not just a title we are talking about, but the IA “brand” itself.
Scott,
Thanks for the good round up of Internet chatter and your perspective surrounding this issue.
IA is not dead, but perhaps the responsibilities of an IA will change or become augmented now that we’re in the Web 2.0 era (or, perhaps the Web 3.0 era?).
Let’s remember, after all, that a title is only a title. How many IAs have responsibilities that might be outside of the traditional definition anyway?
I remember reading just a few months ago that IA practitioners were looking for a way to become accredited in their profession — something that, I think, truly does show that the field is too inwardly focused, as David said — as if lacking credentials changes the value of the product. Instead, it seems like the correct strategy for the IA “brand” is to branch out, listen to, participate in, and include the debates and opinions of other disciplines. Narrowly focused job titles are too often defeated by rapid progress and innovation. I would also agree that IA is just one service performed by people soon to be formerly known as information architects.
I’m not disagreeing with the general thrust of your comments, Scott, and I think you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding the kind of people who are (or who used to be) attracted to IA. But speaking only for myself, I don’t want a “more meaningful expression” for what I do - I don’t want any kind of a job title at all.
It’s precisely the organizational pigeonhole approach that strikes me as being so terribly limiting. I acknowledge that the market for the services of professional generalists is cough a little limited - but that’s the market’s fault, not ours. At least for those of us for whom freedom and flexibility are an overriding concern, aiding and abetting that kind of market-driven restriction on possibility by narrowly labeling ourselves (or endorsing some horribly misguided credentialling process) should be anathema.
Again, I do recognize that not everyone is going to have the luxury of such concerns.
IA is what we do, not who we are. It’s a practice, not a title.
I wonder what you might think of my “layer model” for the IA Profession?
http://www.inkblurt.com/archives/343
It’s rough, but I do think there’s such a thing as an Information Architect, but it’s not as simple as “I’m an IA so I do IA” — there’s a role, one who is doing IA, and anyone who is doing it is, defacto, an IA at that time… they may during the same day be doing UI design, usability testing, or cooking crepes, in which case they’re also taking on roles of Interaction Designer, Usability Engineer, and Crepe Chef. None of those sets of activities necessarily has anything to do with what that person’s title is on a business card. (You can technically do all that stuff and still be unemployed!)
So, there’s Role and Title — two separate things, really.
And then the other layers — “Activities” “Practice” and “Discipline” which I try fleshing out in that post.
Scott,
I’m a bit more optimistic than you, but I think you’re right to focus on the very real risks and dangers of getting stuck. I’ve posted my thoughts here:
http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000149.php
Cheers!
When Wurman first coined the term “information architecture” he said, “information architects make the complex clear.” That’s what we do. We can choose how we label ourselves. Our labels of choice often depend on our schooling or the context in which we find ourselves. If we continue to ask, “how are we making the complex clear for others?” or attention is on the benefits we create and not on the nouns we use for ourselves.
I think you may be right about the job title. We’re everywhere, but do we really need to insist that We Are Information Architects[tm] when the rest of the world simply needs complex problems solved? Remarkable experiences designed? Nifty things created? Nah.
A few years back, it was an incredible blessing when Information Architecture was considered an indisposable part to any web or interactive project — whowouldathoughtthat, execept for a few gaggles of drunks off in dark corners of the web?
That was success. But it didn’t adapt. Now, though, it seems that we have a lot of really bright people still hooked on the Royal Notion of IA for IA’s sake; and as long as the conversation is stuck in that world, then we’re limiting our options. And the conversation may in fact be evolving, but as long as it stays inside that box then it always looks and smells like the same old box.
Me, I jumped offline to find ways to apply IA/ID/UX design principles to physical spaces and to sonic experiences. PeterMe’s IDEA conference is a very encouraging step into new boundaries. And it sounds, based on her bad mood, like Christina’s in the mood to stretch as well.
All for the right reasons: it’s a big world out there, and there’s a lot of IA thinking to apply to it. Personally, I think it’s long overdue that we immersed ourselves in it for the sake of designing that big wide world.
An outsider looking in. I’m not an IA, but my wife is. I recently had her attend the Adobe MAX 2006 conference with me since I was a speaker, and 70% of the people there (software engineers, designers, businessmen) had no f’ing clue what an IA was. Some may of heard of it, but got the definition horribly wrong.
“Oh yeah… like… database design, right?”
“Um… no.”
She got so peeved, she’s now speakind about usability testing (and injecting various other IA topics into the talk) at the WebDU conference in March 2007 in Syndey, Australia. While the motivation source wasn’t so hot, the result is.
Regardless, from my perspective, there is a serious shortage of of qualified IA’s in my portion of the industry (software development & rich internet applications). Every project I’ve had an IA on succeeded more than it failed. Every one that didn’t, it failed more than it succeeded, if at all.
At this point, I personally really don’t care what you call yourselves. I’ve seen a few in the Flash, Flex, and AJAX / web dev community start calling themselves “Experience Designers” or “Interaction Designers”. Big woop-dee-doo… as long as you organize information, are accountable for driving the direction via wireframes, and focus on “organizing what we are building”, then fantastic, I don’t care what you call yourselves. As long as it’s different from dba, programmer, web developer, designer, manager, compositor, and audio engineer, then I’m sure I can use a few common IA’ish keywords on Google to find your site, and thus find you to hire your services.
I think you all have bigger problems, like the designers, to justify your skillset. Like general geeks being about 2 years ahead of the general consumer, there are still clients that struggle with justifying QA in their development / web dev cycle, let alone justfying a higher budget for an “IA” on the team. Some companies get it, big and small. Some really don’t. However, as I recognize the value, as many others do, we wish to put a significant amount of accountability on the IA’s on projects, almost as much as product / project managers, and even paying those higher rates.
As such, you have bigger problems than an identity crisis, you all still aren’t out of the “justification” woods yet. Get over whatever it is you all want to call yourselves, and move on. Most of us in the development field know the value you bring to projects; it’s becomming a necessity. I bitch, loudly, every project there is no clear IA of some sort. The “Creative Director” or “the Designer” is “doing the IA” excuse is getting old, real old. Our industry needs you, badly.
To me “Information Architect” and “User Interface Designer” are about one in the same with the tasks and deliverables they are responsible for. Maybe this is just because I just have experienced the lines becoming more and more blurred today.
The only reason it’s dead is because companies now want to create twice as much work with half the resources. Take a look around at any IA job. IA and usability are now blended into one job. It’s a dumb idea, but will survive since corporate America is always looking for ways to become more “efficient.” This should be challenged since I feel that there are special skills for each role. Why should an IA have to conduct usability testing? The reason is that companies don’t see the real value of either and figure we need to get it done so lets have one person do it all. Experience planning, while valuable, is being designed in the wrong way. As I’ve seen it. this lumps IA, usability with long term planning. Again, that role should be distinct since long term goal setting requires more than just the IA knowledge. Much of it really is the technical limitations and company’s strategic vision.
I also challenge the notion that there is a shortage of qualified candidates. There are plenty — the problem is that companies tend to set an age limit as well as salary limit.