on Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, chapters 3 and 4
Morville and Rosenfeld (2006) identify four different “information needs” that inform user search behavior, which in turn should impact the work of the information architect in organizing a web site or other information environment –
- A user looking for an answer performs a search and finds an exact answer to the exact question; or, “known-item seeking,”
- A user is looking for some possible answers or more data associated with a subject; the search seems to be as informative to helping the search as the answers are; or, “exploratory seeking,”
- A user carries out a comprehensive sweep of data wanting to net everything available related to a subject; or, “exhaustive research,”
- A user previously found and tagged something and is seeking it again; or, “refinding,” ( p. 34).
Morville and Rosenfeld (2006) also class “information seeking behavior” into a few different categories: “searching, browsing, and asking,” (p. 35).
I can easily think of examples of each type of search, all of which I have encountered while working or studying in a library. While working on the reference desk, I often had patrons ask me “Where is [a book that was being held on course reserve]?” or even “Where is the bathroom?” This sort of “known-item seeking” was simple enough to answer, (and their face-to-face contact seems to be of the “asking” sort of information-seeking behavior). This sort of search does seem as simple as the “‘too-simple’ information model” Morville and Rosenfeld (2006) mention, (p. 31).
As for exploratory seeking, I admit to doing this all too often myself, especially using interfaces that allow faceted browsing – when starting a search in a library’s online catalog with something as simple as Russian author’s name, (say, Pushkin), I can retrieve results in many languages and pinpoint only those in English and Russian for my comparative translation work just by using the language facets. While performing this targeting reduction, I might happen upon a different author’s name listed within the author facet; perhaps this is the first connection I have ever seen between the two authors, (maybe Nabokov and Pushkin), and even leads me to find a work absolutely relevant to my own project, (like Nabokov’s translation of Eugene Onegin). Following this example, it seems obvious to me that the actual process of looking for an answer can be instructive, leading not only to an answer but also causing additional searching.
“Exhaustive research” seems related to “exploratory seeking” in a way, since it can also benefit from an initial subject (or author, or keyword) search, with a great explosion of hits led to by as many facets (or aspects, or result limiters, or whatever you’d like to call them) as are available. Also, in the same way that exploratory searching is instructive, so too is exhaustive research each time a search effort returns unknown (but relevant) results.
Finally, I can recall working public service and too often trying to guide students back to an article found through a poorly-remembered database search. Not only is “refinding” a recurring need in users, I can only thank any information professional for recognizing the need to facilitate this process, (whether through del.icio.us, breadcrumbs showing the path of a search, or even the ability to bookmark webpages on a local machine). In short, I can see how an understanding of these two groups of ideas, about information needs and information-seeking behavior, can help positively influence the organization of any system that stores information.
As far as “The Anatomy of an Information Architecture,” I was happy to see a few different examples to assist me in conceptualizing IA in practice. I expect with more experiencing analyzing web content in terms of IA, I will develop faster interpretive abilities for categorizing organization by IA components – as Morville (2006) names them, “organization systems,” “navigation systems,” “search systems,” and “labeling systems,” (p. 43); elsewhere, Morville groups the components differently as “browsing aids,” “search aids,” “content and tasks,” and “’invisible’ components,” (pp. 50-52). Upon reviewing the University of Florida Libraries unit webpage I mentioned in previous posts, I can already see the where aspects of the site in terms of the IA components – and, actually, can only too well see the gaps and missteps in organization that an understanding of IA and its application could resolve, (see http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/acqlic/mono/ for the site, and its embarrassing lack of intuitive categorization).
References
Morville, P. & Rosenfeld, L. (2006). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (3rd ed.). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly.