on Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, preface and chapters 1 & 2
Morville and Rosenfeld (2006) define information architecture as follows:
(1) The structural design of shared information environments.
(2) The combination of organization, labeling, search and navigation systems within web sites and intranets .
(3) The art and science of shaping information products and experiences to support usability and findability.
(4) An emerging discipline and community of practice focused on bringing principles of design and architecture to the digital landscape, (p. 4).
In trying to understand these definitions, I found the further definitions of terms, (on the following page), not nearly as helpful as I’d hoped; I still see significant ambiguity in the four definitions of information architecture. For instance, what is ‘structural design’? If it involves the way data is connected, like the connection between pages and subpages that make up a website, I see very little difference between this and the second definition, (the sum total of all elements of a website?). If the first definition is meant to be broader, I’m afraid I need an example to get a handle on it. The second definition makes perfect sense to me, although I do not feel like I have a clear understanding of the division between an information architect and web designer or programmer as regards this definition. I know that Morville and Rosenfeld address this in the chapter, though. As for the difference between the third and fourth definitions, I tend to see the difference as one (definition 3) being the collected accepted practices and experiences manifest of those doing information architecture, whereas the other (definition 4) is of the entire subject and practitioners of what can be called information architecture.
If, as Morville and Rosenfeld (2006) write, “graphic design … [and] … software development [are] NOT information architecture,” (p. 9), how can we think of an integrated library system (ILS) that has an online catalog? Is the structure of information as it is housed and connected in the relational database that makes up the guts of the ILS not information architecture? If the connection between data elements doesn’t make up information architecture, does the layout of the technical side of the ILS (buttons, menus, connections between modules)? Or, is it only the web-accessible side, the OPAC, that can be thought of in terms of information architecture? From the example related to the UN website, it seems that perhaps information architecture is concerned with a part of the work so often assigned to programmers, graphic designers, or stakeholders who want some web presence – the practical parts of knowing everything that needs to be presented to any user of the web site, (or other “shared information environment”), and the theoretical become practical aspect of determining how to categorize and allow access to all the content and functions that must be available to users.
Even as I have difficulty in clearly understanding the depth and breadth of what information architecture is and can be, I clearly understand the importance of the work the authors call “information architecture”. In my daily work in libraries as well as through my research efforts as a graduate student, I have—and will likely continue to—encounter difficulties in finding what I need and successfully (much less easily) navigating to correct virtual locations. Even as I have mastered the five-step navigation to confirm orders for materials in a vendor database, I feel the twinge of annoyance at time wasted following misleading paths until I finally learned the correct route and method for navigating to my goal. When on the job, this time is not only mine—wasted on pointless clicking instead of doing a more productive task—but is also my employer’s, with the associated value of my salary. In a most immediate way, I understand the value of what I think could be called good information architecture; more, I can easily see the significance in good information architecture saving substantial amounts of time and money for anyone interacting with the product of good IA.
In addition to my satisfaction—or dissatisfaction—on the user end of information architecture, I am sympathetic to the idea that we do indeed need information architects. As someone who has been responsible for a section of a departmental website—mostly for library staff and faculty use—I can certainly say that my products paled in comparison to those I expect an information architect to produce. Speaking more broadly for a second, I think it worth addressing the idea that information architecture is something everyone should engage in: this seems to be as wrongheaded as assuming everyone should be a graphic designer, everyone should be a programmer, or everyone should work the reference desk in a library. While many places—especially libraries—seems to hire for positions that have a variety of diverse work responsibilities, in practice this seems to often lead to mediocre work products. I understand the desire of an employer to fill a number of organizational holes with a single peg, but badly designed and badly organized websites, incomplete reporting based on badly written queries, incompletely informed answers to reference questions, and relatively insipid collections seem to be the real result of hiring an information architect/programmer/reference librarian/collection manager. Even if we acknowledge that the product of an information architect has many stakeholders who all can contribute to the IA work, I can see compelling, real-life reasons why dedicated information architects are valuable and necessary – especially, as Morville and Rosenfeld (2006) note, in big organizations (p. 18), (including large libraries!).
Briefly, as regards the “three circles of information architecture” (Morville and Rosenfeld, 2006, p. 25), I can already see the effectiveness of identifying content, context, and users for a webspace; in fact, though I know my efforts will result in a half-informed (at best) analysis, I have already begun reviewing the website I was recently responsible for maintaining in terms of its content, context and users.
References
Morville, P. & Rosenfeld, L. (2006). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (3rd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.