Information Architecture:
Where does it fit?

by Samantha Lizak

Try this experiment. Open up Vivisimo (vivisimo.com), a search engine that clusters results. Type in "information architecture"-it doesn't seem to matter much if you do it with or without quotes. You will find that usability is the top category, with twice as many entries as the next category (either Publications or Organizing, depending on the search string). Trouble is, several of those articles preach that information architecture (IA) isn't usability.

This is odd, because all the consultancies that seem to be selling IA (or its closely related field, information design) also mention usability, interaction design, or user experience. The job postings on Monster.com (tonight's search gave 119 jobs with the IA keyword) range from database analyst to web developer to marketing manager, with some business analysts and systems engineers thrown in. Although some of the IAs are being hired to "Recommend why and how to implement data warehouses, data marts, EAI solutions and other middle-ware,"[1] most jobs are for something like "Leading the development of complex information architecture and user experiences, creating and/or directing the creation of user cases, user scenarios, functional specifications, sitemaps, wire frames, and workflow diagrams."[2]

Those technical communicators who are not primarily web developers seem to be marginalized in this field, even more so than with usability. The first content-related job my Monster search turned up was on page 3, about halfway through the overall list. (We fare better on Monster using the keywords "Knowledge" or "Content Management".) The closest claim we technical communicators seem to make on IA is via the American Society for Information Science (ASIS).

So what happened? It seemed five years ago that "information architect" was becoming a popular, fancy name for tech writer. Have all of the information architects of the late '90s morphed into usability specialists with a special emphasis on the Web? Or have they gone back to being "learning products engineers" and "technical writers"?

IA Sites: Defining Information Architecture

I poked around several of the "IA insider" sites, hoping to gain some further understanding. An obvious beginning site, the IAWiki , settles for describing the IA debate rather than providing a definition. [3] Of the four proposed definitions, two seem to apply to technical communication: the "everything around the information structure" definition, which the author calls "information design;" and the "process of creating systems that mediate information to and from users" definition, which is dubbed "mediated realities." (And I thought "learning products engineer" was misleading. "Reality mediator" will really make for fun small talk.)

A tutorial on WebMonkey [4] defines IA as planning your website. The details sound a lot like developing product documentation: decide the goals, figure out who the audience is, organize, outline, choose metaphors, and maybe even do some layout and prototyping. The main difference (besides being web-focused) is the last step-visual design.

Finally, most of the IA sites eventually seem to point to the Asilomar Institute for Information Architecture . In an article by a founder of Asilomar [5], I found part of the reason that technical writers seem to be overlooked-this particular article, at least, defines IA as something related to "information environments" and the "digital landscape." Although technical communicators are acknowledged content providers, it seems that our long ties with paper documentation sink us. When companies need "information environments" they choose web designers. (The quote that really frustrated me, however, was from an article about breaking into IA, asking what sort of background was appropriate. The answer was "any education that emphasizes the organization and presentation of information is going to be helpful. For example, a design, journalism or computer science degree with an emphasis on user interface would be a good starting point." [6] Even though I have a computer science degree, I would never have described it as being about organizing and presenting information! C'mon, where's technical communication in that list?)

Non-IA Sites: Defining Information Architecture

Just as I was about ready to give up on the IA field as too hip for a book-lover, I started reading information architecture definitions used outside the field. So far, all of them list IA as a facet of technical writing primarily, and of web development second! (At least one source says this is because every designer is shaped by the medium current when he was learning, and for most of us, that medium is still print.)

For example, whatis.com starts off their definition of IA with "(1) In technical writing. " [7] Whatis.com is run by TechTarget , an IT company.

STC's Information Design SIG does not define IA as being a separate entity from Information Design, which applies design principles to creating meaningful information out of chaotic data. The same page [8] also supplies many other definitions; An information designer says of information architects, "Information architects come from a variety of backgrounds, but I sense that a majority of them display an orientation toward language. Information designers, on the other hand, tend to be oriented toward the visual arts." [9] I found this humorous, because the main distinction I had noticed in the web sites I was browsing was that writers and writing organizations tended to refer to "information design" but usability sites referred to "information architecture." It is all about the information.

So my night of reading links has left me wondering... Is information architecture a kindred field that many writers branch into, like usability? Or is it a technical communication specialty that outgrew us, like electronic support systems? Because there seems to be no consensus between the communities, someone with the job title of "information architect" might well be found writing the content or leaving the front-end organization to other specialists, much as many "senior writers" do more high-level planning and implementation than actual writing for customers.

In closing, I'd like to share this bit from a book review written by Laurie Gray, who quotes Richard Wurman, the man who coined the term "information architecture:"

"What does your organization really do? . Companies trying to sound hip and sophisticated deprive their potential customers of an opportunity to understand their business." [Wurman] goes on to point out that the current trend in technology advertising makes it very difficult to determine what a company sells. Instead of selling hardware and software, everyone now provides "technology solutions;" a hip term that doesn't tell the consumer very much. He urges the reader to consider how much clearer technology-solution advertisements would be if everyone followed this model. [10]

Now that I am thoroughly confused, I wish all of us would take this to heart.

References

[1] Example 1 - jobsearch.monster.com/...

[2] Example 2 - jobsearch.monster.com/...

[3] iawiki.net/DefiningTheDamnThing

[4] hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/design/site_building/tutorials/tutorial1.html

[5] semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000010.php

[6] technology.monster.com/articles/infoarchitect/

[7] http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9_gci509934,00.html

[8] www.stcsig.org/id/definitions.html

[9] http://www.kelake.org/articles/id/differences.html

[10] www.webreference.com/authoring/design/information/anxiety2/

About the Author

Samantha Lizak is a senior STC member who spends more time working with software engineers than with other writers or content specialists, an association that has taught her to be very careful with her "commonly understood" terminology. Samantha can be reached at samantha.lizak@verizon.net.