SIGIA-L Mail Archives: Re: SIGIA-L: we know IA when we see it,
Re: SIGIA-L: we know IA when we see it, don't we?
From: Antoinette Arsic (antoinette.arsic_at_eer.com)
Date: Wed Aug 23 2000 - 10:52:12 EDT
I like the way the different job descriptions at Argus point out some of the
differences in the IA, the content anaylst (or architect?), thesaurus designer,
etc.
http://www.argus-inc.com/recruiting/positions/thesaurusdesigner.shtml
Antoinette
"Todd, Steven (Steve), ALSVC" wrote:
> (apologies for the re-post - removed return characters)
>
> To expand on Louis R's suggestion --
>
> An individual working as an IA will do certain tasks, use particular
> methods, etc. These are the bottom-up bits that Louis suggested we
> identify.
>
> But an IA is a member of team, whose team members may be graphic artists,
> usability engineers, etc. The composition of these teams will vary from
> project to project, company to company. The tasks/methods performed by each
> type of team member will also vary (e.g., my team's "usability engineer" may
> do X, but your team's UE does not and the "graphic artist" does).
>
> To help us list the bits that an IA does, it may help to also list the other
> team members and their bits too. For example, my team may be:
> IA: does A, C, D
> Usability Eng: does D, E, F
> Graphic Artist: does F, G
> Marketing: does L, M
> And your team may be:
> IA: does A, C, L
> Usability Eng: does D, M
> Graphic Artist: does D, E, F, G
>
> This will allow us to show when tasks are shared by more than one team
> member, the importance of a cooperative workplace, that projects are the
> work of a team, equally functional teams may be composed of different
> members, etc.
>
> One difficulty will be to make sure that we agree on the definition of the
> bits (e.g., you know what I mean when I say task "X").
>
> After looking over all the data we gather, we may find that the typical IA
> does tasks A and C (Louis' point).
>
> Steve
>
> ps - For kicks, and with enough data, the data can be poured into a
> multidimensional stats model to see the clusters of the "typical" roles and
> dimensions. Extra credit, :)
> ------------------
> steventodd_at_att.com
> (732) 420-2881
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis Rosenfeld [mailto:lou_at_argus-inc.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 6:43 PM
> To: SIGIA mailing list
> Subject: SIGIA-L: we know IA when we see it, don't we?
>
> It's obviously difficult to define a profession/field/discipline from the
> top down. At various venues (e.g., the Boston ASIS Summit, this and other
> mailing lists), we've tried to come up with a catchy short consensus
> definition. And as we all know, we're not there yet, and quite possibly we
> may never get there.
>
> So maybe it would be better to try a "bottom-up" approach instead. Bear
> with me for a moment: perhaps one way to define a new and somewhat abstract
> field is by determining its borders--for example, can we say with any
> confidence where IA ends and information design begins? They obviously have
> substantial overlap. Same is true of IA and visual design, IA and systems
> architecture, IA and knowledge management, IA and usability engineering, IA
> and structured markup...
>
> While we may not be able to define IA, many of us know it when we see it.
> For example, I feel that determining the labels for options within a
> navigation system is the IA's job. But the font selection and color choices
> for those labels are the job of the interface designer, *not* the IA. Same
> goes for whether those navigational choices should be presented as a bar or
> column, and where they go on the page.
>
> If we as a community can answer these questions in any sort of consensus
> way, I believe that we'll have a better sense of the boundaries of IA, and
> subsequently may be closer to a better shared definition. Does this sound
> like a good idea? And might this exercise be something we take on as a
> community?
>
> Louis Rosenfeld / lou_at_argus-inc.com
> Argus Associates / http://argus-inc.com / 734.913.0010
> Defining information architecture
>
> ------------------
> steventodd_at_att.com
> (732) 420-2881
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis Rosenfeld [mailto:lou_at_argus-inc.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 6:43 PM
> To: SIGIA mailing list
> Subject: SIGIA-L: we know IA when we see it, don't we?
>
> It's obviously difficult to define a profession/field/discipline from the
> top down. At various venues (e.g., the Boston ASIS Summit, this and other
> mailing lists), we've tried to come up with a catchy short consensus
> definition. And as we all know, we're not there yet, and quite possibly we
> may never get there.
>
> So maybe it would be better to try a "bottom-up" approach instead. Bear
> with me for a moment: perhaps one way to define a new and somewhat abstract
> field is by determining its borders--for example, can we say with any
> confidence where IA ends and information design begins? They obviously have
> substantial overlap. Same is true of IA and visual design, IA and systems
> architecture, IA and knowledge management, IA and usability engineering, IA
> and structured markup...
>
> While we may not be able to define IA, many of us know it when we see it.
> For example, I feel that determining the labels for options within a
> navigation system is the IA's job. But the font selection and color choices
> for those labels are the job of the interface designer, *not* the IA. Same
> goes for whether those navigational choices should be presented as a bar or
> column, and where they go on the page.
>
> If we as a community can answer these questions in any sort of consensus
> way, I believe that we'll have a better sense of the boundaries of IA, and
> subsequently may be closer to a better shared definition. Does this sound
> like a good idea? And might this exercise be something we take on as a
> community?
>
> Louis Rosenfeld / lou_at_argus-inc.com
> Argus Associates / http://argus-inc.com / 734.913.0010
> Defining information architecture
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:21 EST
|
