experience matters

Well – I guess we’re still stuck.

Kidding aside – over the years, when I’ve heard IA practitioners describe the value of their work it has mostly centered around bringing order to chaos.

Unless I misunderstand, what you’re proposing is that in the age of Twitter and APIs, IA practitioners need to become equally adept at breaking things and tearing them apart.

I completely agree.

There is a boxes and arrows aspect to IA that we can’t ignore, some practitioners are content to hone their craft in the classical IA realm, but understanding how to design for emergent systems, where don’t really know how it ends has become imperative. We need to show the way.

In your presentation, you reference “post-modern IA”. I think a number of IA practitioners have made the shift to the post-modern realm where things are even fuzzier, open and distributed. Slide 81 is the money slide for me.

Is information architecture worth saving?

It doesn’t need saving.

It needs some TLC and nurturing.

Matt… people like you and I, we need to do a better job at evangelizing the shift to post-modern IA. We also need to codify the post modern IA toolkit for new practitioners and teach them how to use it.

It’s not about saving IA. It is what it is – which is not a cop-out. We need to continue breaking down barriers amongst disciplines and simply show the way.

Great Post, Great presentation. Can’t wait to hear the podcast.

Business Analysis, IA, IxD, etc.
I really hate when my tools want to be a title.

Well the title scared me the moment I saw it in my RSS reader, but you do raise some interesting points. New to the field there is a lot of the time where I am wondering, what exactly does this job all entail, were does my area end and say a designer, or a planners start?

In terms of the de-centralized items like twitter, API’s and mashups, I think what’s required is to be either a part of these, or be very knowledge able and have practical experience with them.

I’m all for exploring new tools, it’s just the constant problem of (for me anyway), what is a really effective tool, and what is just really cool.

It’s not about tools. It’s not about job titles. It’s not about career paths. It’s about how well each of us is solving the problems we’re faced with. Are we helping customers kick ass? No other question matters. How each of us works toward that will differ depending on client, project, skillset and workplace–and that’s fine.

Are we helping customers kick ass? It’s the only question that matters.

Information Architecture is – and always will be – the foundation for positive online experiences. That’s what my gut tells me, but more on that in a sec.

When you think about structures built centuries ago (think Pyramids) to modern day structures like the ROM at Avenue and Bloor, some dude was drawing stuff out on a slab of stone, in the sand, or on a piece of paper. They did it then, we do it now. They listened to what someone wanted other people to experience. In the same breath, they observed how people behaved and pontificated how they might behave in the new structures they were planning to build. Sound familiar?

Times have changed. Tools have gotten better.

The products we design as information architects change everyday; that’s the nature of the web. One thing that hasn’t changed for me – and for you as well – is the gut feeling I have about organizing information and deconstructing it when I need to. There will always be a need for this. And I believe you need to be born with getting shit organized in a way that can influence positive change.

Is IA worth saving? Like Scott mentions, it doesn’t need saving. We’re all just so damn busy that we forget to notice how well things are working because of IA.

You know, my team has been operating a similar mindset over the last several months. IA (in its truest form) is a discipline and art that is needed in the right situation.

We as designers and strategists should not be afraid to IA some on our own… embrace the challenge… get our ideas out there. Ultimately we are the problem solvers, the flag wavers for the project and the the ones that can’t stop thinking about it… we have our purest thoughts on what each project will do… say… look like… need… (rah! rah!)

Now, that being said, we should also know when there is too much chaos/content or a need for an IA to bring some clarity to a project. I guess that just comes from experience and truly understanding both your audience and message.

Don’t overthink the damn thing… chew on it, spit it out and then work it, mold it, revise it, collaborate on it… get it to feel right.

orthodox IA + left audience + left message = successful project
unorthodox IA + right audience + right message = successful project

Is Information Architecture worth saving?
Absolutely… although it should not only exist in the truest form. It is a mindset that should be taught to designers, strategists and writers so they enter into the project thinking about the user experience in the end and not just the challenge at hand.

Amen, Gabby and Scott.

Is Art Directing worth saving?

Seriously, think about it. Do Art Directors direct art anymore? No. Actually, it’s not even art. It’s commercial design. No wait—it’s design and programming… wait…

Point is that if you identify yourself too much with a title, than your problems may be bigger than grappling with the notion of saving a discipline.

There are such things as disciplines—but when then lose meaning, they become titles. Which as we know work for companies, but not so much for individuals.

As stated before, focus on the end game. In our business, that’s using our skills to add value to the life of the customer as best we can.

Excellent presentation BTW. It’s all about how we adapt and perform in our environment. As I’ve said in “The Fuzzy Tail” the enemy is rigidity mixed with thinking “we are the experts”.

There will be a podcast? oh, wow. Looking forwarad to it.

[...] myself “have we come closer to a creative solution to this problem”? In Matthew’s “fighter pilot” presentation, again I felt the pattern emerging. Matthew talked about speed, agility, synthesis. The ability to [...]

Hey all, I’ve uploaded the podcast right into the slideshow so it’s a slidecast now. Just click the play button on the slideshow. It will also be available on Boxes and Arrows in the very near future if you’re looking for a standalone version.

I use the same tools and methods to design emerged systems as I do to design emergent systems.

I’ve heard several people say IAs suck at IA for emergent systems, but there’s never any reason why. It’s just assumed everyone knows.

So, why are common IA methods no good for designing emergent systems, and what methods are better?

Hey Austin,

My perspective is that far from people knowing why (IA sucks at designing emergent systems), the reality is that they don’t know why; and are likely just riffing on the symptoms. The see that stuff isn’t right, but they can’t see why.

One of the things I’m really interested in figuring out over the next few years is what methods and tools IAs might/ought to use to design emergent systems. I talked with a number of people at the IA Summit this year who shared that view – possibly enough to start a decent recurring conversation on the subject.

Net: I have no clue what methods are better now, but my gut tells me we need them. My guess is we’ll see the first passes at these new tools (or modified existing tools) in the next year or so, with some consistency in the methods emerging (pun intended) in the year or two after that.

[...] Is Information Architecture worth saving? Experiencematters [...]

[...] Is Information Architecture worth saving? at Experience Matters (tags: architecture) [...]

I was at your presentation and it was one of the most thought provoking without doubt. Who knows but, when we look back at the IA Summit 2008 it may be the defining moment when we realised that the disicpline of IA had changed for good.

The title of IA is, like David said, just good for companies and organisations. They get it so perhaps its best left at that. We know what we do and I would like to say we are all designers of one sort or another. IA, UCD and UX are all badges that serve a purpose in boardrooms all over the world. They do their job, but we need to make sure we are not bound by them.

The fighter pilot story was an excellent way to reframe how we think of ourselves as design practitioners. The OODA model (Observe, Orient, Decide and Act)is very similar to the reflective practice model talked about by Cal Swann.

He said that ‘The design process is iterative. It can only be effective if it is a constant process of revisiting the problem, reanalysing it and synthesizing revised solutions’

In effect it is a PAOR model – Plan, Act, Observe and Reflect. Its the reflection part that is important (perhaps the differentiator to Boyd’s) that feeds into the next cycle. In reflection we evaluate and prepare to synthesis our next move.

What we also need to remember is our ability to garner tools, techniques or tricks from experience. In the fighter pilot’s situation that maybe through training or combat, in our experience it is through many different types of work.

Then we gain tacit knowledge , the ability to intuitively know when something is right and looks good. That is unquantifiable and that is what defines great designers (or fighter pilots, sports stars, dancers etc).

Of course IA is worth saving but I think we have to realise that products like the iPhone mean we need to change and adapt remarkably quickly, not rely on tried and tested techniques. Designing for emergent systems relies on tacit knowledge and no process or methodology will give you that.

Sorry for the ramble but its all interesting in terms of how this will develop

[...] only half a discipline. He didn’t really explain this in the presentation but he does in this post.  He states that our interaction design qualities are addressed easily (wireframes, flows etc) [...]

[...] Matthew Milan on whether IA is worth saving [...]

Information Architecture is worth saving, information architects are not.

The problem with most information architects is that they come out of an academic school where the actual craft is ignored.

Sure info archs are good at taking information and structuring it, but they are horrible at thinking in actual usage, cause their goal is to make the system right rather than the experience.

So in that respect, the best results come from info archs who has a craft of some sort which normally mean they come from outside academia.