|
The launch of the Asilomar Institute for Information Architecture, has proven a wellspring for discussions on the emerging profession and discipline of information architecture. I've got a few thoughts based on what I've been reading and talking to people about. Here ya go. The folks behind AIfIA have not done a very good job of handling "community reaction" to the new organization. Let's see here--a group of folks from what could be justly labeled the IA Cabal get together in secret, hash out a plan for an organization to represent the entire profession and discipline of information architecture, and unleash it in the form of a website. They seemed to have expected the community to prostrate themselves before the Institute, crying, "Oh thank you thank you for blessing us with your efforts," and have been caught off-guard by some concern that this is the same old clique promoting the same old stuff, and hey, just who are you people anyway to tell me about what I do? What's been most distressing to me is the defensiveness expressed by various AIfIA mouthpieces -- I have not read one admittance that maybe the unveiling of AIfIA was flawed, that if they wanted "buy in" from the larger community, it might have been wise to earlier incorporate voices from outside The Cabal. Additionally, in talking to various folks in The Cabal, many have told me that they didn't think that the unveiling went as well as it should have, but they're not comfortable publicly expressing dissent with The Group. Admitting mistakes can go a long way toward winning over others -- it's not a sign of weakness (as it seems some AIfIA members fear), it's simply a sign of humanity. I know that various mouthpieces would now say, "AIfIA *is* open to anyone! Sign up and your voice will be heard!" This is disingenuous, as it's very much after-the-fact of the public unveiling, wherein a direction for AIfIA seems to be set, and you can hop on their wagon. But then you dig further into AIfIA, and you realize that no strong direction has been set, and you realize that this finished-looking website is just a facade, and then I think, well, why did they feel like they needed to come across as so robust, so finished, when it's clear that this is very much a work-in-progress? And, again, in talking with members of The Cabal, they've told me that AIfIA is very roughly sketched out, and that there was concern about launching something so polished, but the decision was made and there you go. This is all particularly ironic, because this procedure has highlighted one of the common problems I've seen with information architects--they're poor at understanding how they are perceived. In this case, they've wanted to have their cake ("We're A Real Organization, With A Mission, and Goals") and eat it, too ("But We're Open to Anything And You Should Join Us And Set Direction"). In a recent essay, Peter Morville has written about AIfIA, and comments on how "scary" it is that many people within the world of Information Technology (IT) don't know anything about information architecture. I don't find this scary. It ties into a point that my business partner Lane has made to me: If you've only got 5 minutes of someone's time, which is more important to get across -- User Experience or Information Architecture? For me, the answer is easy: user experience. Largely because it's more obvious. As information architects know, explaining what they do, even to smart people in related fields, is difficult. Once given a clue as to what user experience is, folks can understand that improving the user experience of a product will be valuable. That will never be true of information architecture, which, by nature, is more abstract and subtle. (I'm biased, as my company is a "user experience consulting and training" firm.) Now, information architecture is a key component of the user experience. But I've been wondering if everyone Out There really needs to know about it. Think about other disciplines. Are structural engineers all worked up over the fact that "business" doesn't understand their value? No. Business understands the value of building architects, who in turn understand the value of structural engineers. It's not reasonable to expect everyone to understand everything. Which is why, in picking what to promote Out There, I opt for user experience over information architecture. What's funny to me is that there are no "user experience" organizations, really. There are a lot of organizations that touch on user experience -- UPA (usability professionals, whose membership publication is called User Experience), ASIST, SIGCHI, AIGA (whose Experience Design community is probably the closest thing to a user experience organization there is). Note: After writing this post, I took a bike ride, and realized I've been awfully critical of AIfIA. So I wrote the following, originally in the comments section for this post, but I thought I'd promote it to the post itself, just to show that I'm not some relentless doomsayer and stuff:I've been thinking about this post, and I realize that I've tended to be quite critical of AIfIA from the moment I heard about it. I guess it's my nature to immediately question. I do wish for AIfIA oodles of success. I think that success will come if AIfIA finds a valuable focus. I think the focus, at least in the near-term, should be on three things: a) research
b) curriculum development
c) methodology development Essentially, focus on improving the *practice* of information architecture. I think there's a lot of potential value in such an endeavor. I'm wary of AIfIA *promoting* IA. I just think that it's not going to prove to be the wisest use of resource, if only because the idea of promotion is, in its nature, so vague.
10 comments so far. Add a comment.
Previous entry: "Krispy Kreme's New Coffee."
Next entry: "Stir your brain..."
Comments:
COMMENT #1
We have had three choices in handling response to AIfIA: explain, apologize, or get on with things and try to provide real value to the IA community. We have done the first: explain. But apparently we haven't done this well. We are trying. We have not done the second: apologize. Should we apologize? Perhaps, but I, for one, am not sure what good it will do or how *that* will be received. I regret some of what's happened, but I do not regret helping to create AIfIA. What's done is done. Which brings us to number three. We are working hard on the third: moving forward and providing real value. If AIfIA can provide real value to the community over the next year, then none of this will matter. Yes we're surprised at the response. Yes, we expected criticism. No, we did not think it would provoke this strong a reaction. After all, BoxesAndArrows.com was developed in a similar manner and nobody squawked about that. Here's the big question: If the unveiling of AIfIA was flawed, as you say, does that mean that AIfIA is also flawed and should be put down like a lame horse? Does our past nullify our future? I have asked this question in various ways to several people. So far the answer has been a resounding no. But it has also been a qualified no: AIfIA could be a great thing, they have said, as long as it is an open organization from here on in, develops a clear set of goals, communicates those goals to the larger IA community, and meet s those goals within a reasonable timeframe. This is what we are now trying to do and what we intended to do from the very beginning. --karl
Posted by Karl Fast @ 11/17/2002 04:11 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #2
Ahh, so there I go: being "defensive" again. Sorry. You're right that the unveiling of AIfIA was flawed. We've had a lot of positive response to this. We've had some negative response. There has been more positive than negative. But the negative has been more vocal. I just want to move on and get some real work done on this.
Posted by Karl Fast @ 11/17/2002 04:48 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #3
OK, I surrender. I've been trying to kick the walls of the accepted definition of IA apart for almost two years now - I have *always* believed that it is an appropriate term for what you and everyone else seems dead set on calling "user experience." But this viewpoint has proved a nonstarter. I haven't been able to get any traction with it. Memetic permission has not been granted. As a community, we're back towards a very LIS, Polar Bear definition of IA, and maybe that's part and parcel of AIfIA's mission. Even if this is the case, I disagree that Out There doesn't need to know about IA. Understand all the nuts and bolts, maybe not, but decision makers should damn well be offered a rationale that there is a methodology behind Improved User Experience, that it's called information architecture, and that these are the resources and time frames information architecture requires to be effective in Improving same...
Posted by Adam Greenfield @ 11/17/2002 06:17 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #4
I've been thinking about this post, and I realize that I've tended to be quite critical of AIfIA from the moment I heard about it. I guess it's my nature to immediately question. I do wish for AIfIA oodles of success. I think that success will come if AIfIA finds a valuable focus. I think the focus, at least in the near-term, should be on three things: a) research
b) curriculum development
c) methodology development Essentially, focus on improving the *practice* of information architecture. I think there's a lot of potential value in such an endeavor. I'm wary of AIfIA *promoting* IA. I just think that it's not going to prove to be the wisest use of resource, if only because the idea of promotion is, in its nature, so vague.
Posted by peterme @ 11/17/2002 06:24 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #5
I don't know if AIfIA is really the place for it, but I'd really like to see someone out there working on tools for the IA community as well. I am planning a few that I will be working on in the near future, being someone with a technical background, but with "solid IA-thought processes". I haven't really seen much around that looks useful for IAs, and something concrete (even if they are very small, discrete tools), might even help to define the practise - since there's something to show people and say "look, I use this tool to do this task -- this is part of IA" I saw there was a discussion on info-arch about IATools, and a yahoo group even got made, but I haven't really seen much come out of them as far as actual tools go. My plans are; - Search Log Analyser (standard DB schema, including some scripting glue to pull the required details from "any" search system and log them properly, then an interface for analysing this information) - Search System (a standard DB schema for a search index which implements preferred/variant terms [controlled vocab], broader and narrower terms and best bet indexing. It will include an interface for managing the relationships and the best bets) - Content Management System (this one's a bit of a pipe-dream, but I will probably work on some "blueprints" and specifications for an IA-centric CMS, including things like people-friendly URLs, taxonomoy creation, meta data management etc) There's my shortlist, which is probably in the order that they will be approached in, although the first 2 might get worked on together. My plan will be to release all of this as either Open Source, or just general "musings" which people are free to pick up and play with, depending on what level I can get it all to. Hopefully this will be of use to someone else, apart from me as well :)
Posted by Beau @ 11/17/2002 06:38 PM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #6
maybe i'm confused, but doesn't the experience design arm of the american instute of graphic designers theorectically do user experience design? and you are a boss of that, right? so you are working to promote what you care about? so why do you care if others work to promote what they care about? anyhow i'm was on both lists and i never saw as much useful information on the x-design list as i saw on sigia. anyhow i quit both. x-design just talks about graphic design and sigia just gossips and fights lately. it used to be a pretty good list. i might join aia to see if they have a moderted list with fewer jerks.
Posted by laura @ 11/18/2002 09:17 AM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #7
Some of you know me, and I risk offending friends here, but I feel like I need to express a few things. I checked out of this discussion/argument/nitpick a long, long time ago. Too many of us seem to be too concerned about definitions, egos and establishing our place in the hierarchy of importance amongst our peers. We've all become a little too self-important, I think, and maybe it's time to shift the discussion on to more interesting topics. Personally, I don't care about who's who anymore or who belongs to a supposed "cabal" or who doesn't (I don't know *any* of the people who are supposedly in this IA cabal, and I've been doing this as long as anyone). I don't care who gets to set the agenda or ratify the definitions or promote the field outside of itself. It's largely entertainment and ultimately tiresome. I'm more interested in results these days. Put your mouth where your work is, I say. What are people in this community actually doing to change the world in small or big ways? Who among the cabal of smart people is actually hitting the road running and using their skills to enact change around them? I may have an overly altruistic outlook, but I think we spend too much time on dogma and proselytizing and not enough time talking about how any of this actually makes life better for anyone other than ourselves. I want to hear stories about how IA or UE-- in any form of its myriad definitions-- for one brief moment stepped outside of its own community to change the world in whatever small way. I want to hear about the success stories and learn how a particular solution actually worked. In other words, let's turn our successes into instruction and methodology for the rest of the community to celebrate and discuss and learn from so that another of us can go out into the world and enact change, too. Over and out.
Posted by timg @ 11/18/2002 09:54 AM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #8
Some of you know me, and I risk offending friends here, but I feel like I need to express a few things. I checked out of this discussion/argument/nitpick a long, long time ago. Too many of us seem to be too concerned about definitions, egos and establishing our place in the hierarchy of importance amongst our peers. We've all become a little too self-important, I think, and maybe it's time to shift the discussion on to more interesting topics. Personally, I don't care about who's who anymore or who belongs to a supposed "cabal" or who doesn't (I don't know *any* of the people who are supposedly in this IA cabal, and I've been doing this as long as anyone). I don't care who gets to set the agenda or ratify the definitions or promote the field outside of itself. It's largely entertainment and ultimately tiresome. I'm more interested in results these days. Put your mouth where your work is, I say. What are people in this community actually doing to change the world in small or big ways? Who among the cabal of smart people is actually hitting the road running and using their skills to enact change around them? I may have an overly altruistic outlook, but I think we spend too much time on dogma and proselytizing and not enough time talking about how any of this actually makes life better for anyone other than ourselves. I want to hear stories about how IA or UE-- in any form of its myriad definitions-- for one brief moment stepped outside of its own community to change the world in whatever small way. I want to hear about the success stories and learn how a particular solution actually worked. In other words, let's turn our successes into instruction and methodology for the rest of the community to celebrate and discuss and learn from so that another of us can go out into the world and enact change, too. Over and out.
Posted by timg @ 11/18/2002 10:05 AM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #9
Having been on the indide from the beginning of AIfIA, the plan has been to build a professional organization for information architecture that helps the practitioners and the end-users if IA. The closest analogy is baking cookies, chocolate chip cookies. AIfIA spent a lot of time hashing if we needed chocolate chip cookies, to a person we strongly believe we needed chocolate chip cookies. We spent a lot of time asking questions of each other, and chatted outside our own group to see what folks would want in their chocolate chip cookies and how they like them baked. The group did not want anybody knowing we were planning to bake cookies, as everybody has their own ingredients that they much have or must not have in order to deem them good chocolate chip cookies. The AIfIA folks took surveys of those that liked eating cookies, making these cookies, and they talked with a lot of consumers. AIfIA decided they could not and did not want to no could they bake all the cookies on their own. Because of the various possible ingredients decided only would make a small batch as a sample. What AIfIA did is set up the infrastructure and offers a basic recipe of dough letting those wanting to benefit from the baking to modify the recipe, mix the batches and cook their batches. AIfIA, in the current state, is a professional organization that has the infrastructure set to help IAs. The members can and should drive the organization and help shape the organization. Things at the moment are somewhat vague because it is relatively plain dough being offered. Please do not state AIfIA is X or Y or not X or Y, in fact it is still bland and it is up to you (each and everyone of you) to help flavor AIfIA. There is a lot of work to be done to make AIfIA sustainable and able to support the membership and meet members expectations. All the Board and Leadership Counsel of AIfIA believe we need help, sweat equity and brain equity, to move forward (and knew from the very beginning we would). We are believing this and we welcome help with open arms. AIfIA is working to add more infrastructure to support initiative that members are requesting. AIfIA is listening and working to assist requests to become fact. As far as promoting IA, there are definately folks out there that need and should know about IA, but do not. The same can be said about Experience Design, User Centered Design, etc. The practioners in these fields do not live in vacuums and promote the holistic approach of User Centered Design. I personally use IA as a small umbrella, but I am not the only voice on this. There is a great need for the work to done as digital information applications (Websites, Internet repositories, mobile services, etc.) are for the most part a mess and horribly structured. Source information is in horrible shape, the user has never been thought of as a consumer or the focal point of the information being used, applications have horrible interaction design, there are no contingency plans, and there visual design is counter productive. Yes, there is a lot of work to be done as well as getting the word out that it takes far more than technology to build a useful and usable information application. We all know that and have *drank the kool-aide*, but most of the world that makes the decisions does not know this. To that end we have ALL failed to this point and AIfIA and other groups that have popped up are out to not only share what we know are proven methods to greater success, but to help raise the professions around these proven methods so we have enough people that are properly trainded to do the work. It is also the intent to have the consumers of our work know what to expect so they can discern what is good and bad and know that the work they are getting is worth what they are spending (not done by somebody with a *poof* I am an IA understanding). There are a lot of hours of chatting, thinking, planning, and sweating to get to this end. Come build all of our futures.
Posted by vanderwal @ 11/18/2002 11:09 AM PST [link to this comment]
COMMENT #10
I think most of your criticisms are good ones, Peter, but I think there's one built in assumption that warrants further clarification, and it's one that i think may be (mistakenly) at the center of much of the criticism AIfIA has received. Your analysis of the planning behind AIfIA is incorrect: " Let's see here--a group of folks from what could be justly labeled the IA Cabal get together in secret, hash out a plan for an organization to represent the entire profession and discipline of information architecture, and unleash it in the form of a website." I've felt very strongly from the beginning (although, admittedly, some other members *may* disagree with me) that AIfIA was never intended to represent the entire profession. One argument behind adding "asilomar" to our name is to ground our activities with a sense of place, to make us *an* institute of information architecture (the Asilomar Institute...), not *the* institute. We are not THE (one and only) Institute of Information Architecture. Essentially, we're a group of folks who've gotten together thinking it would be great to build tools for, as you suggest, advancing the practice of IA. I don't see it as a problem that we didn't consult "the community" earlier, as we were just investing our own time and money into something we thought important. We've invited others with a similar interest to join us, and to demonstrate their commitment by pledging a small amount of money to support the goals of AIfIA. We don't speak for the entire community, we only speak for our collective selves. We believe we have something to offer by helping to put some preliminary infrastructure in place to help facilitate connections between those who share in the vision that we've expressed, but others are welcome to disagree with us. As I recall, the founders of Adaptive Path, though being committed to advancing the practice of user experience design (among other things) did not consult the community prior to launching the company. You're also a for-profit company, and never invited others in to join your party, making a direct comparison not extremely valid, but at root there are similarities. You guys are doing something that you think is right, taking responsibility for it and accepting the risk of it failing, and getting something in return. AIfIA is the same in that regard: the founders believe the organization is a good thing, we've invested in getting it started, we'll accept responsibility if it fails. But we also invite anyone who cares to share in that responsibility to do so. And those who care not to are welcome not to. On the other hand, I'll admit that we've obviously manage to get across the wrong message, leaving many with the impression that we do indeed believe we are the ALL KNOWING INSTITUTE OF IA, that we believe we speak for all, and that we think it's in everyone's best interest to come and play with us. That we need to get better at communicating our message is a fair criticism. Also remember though that we're all just getting this thing started, no one has much time, we mostly only have email to communicate with one another, things naturally get left off of the Web site... We're going to make mistakes. We're an extrememly immature organization. We're trying to figure out how we're going to deal with issues of communication while at the same time worrying about what we're going to have to communicate about in the first place. So, mostly, we're just trying to do stuff, make mistakes, learn from them, grow, hopefully get smarter and more effective. And if, ultimately, we fail, at least we tried. And since we know that the community in its entirety is much stronger and much bigger than what AIfIA represents, the community will live on without us. If we've made that life a little bit better, we'd be thrilled.
Posted by jz @ 11/19/2002 07:10 PM PST [link to this comment]
Add A New Comment:
|