Information Architecture 3.0 (November 29, 2006)

http://semanticstudios.com/publications/semantics/000149.php

---

At a recent gathering of CIOs, I was introduced, not as an information
architect, interaction designer, or librarian, but as a futurist. I
figure this affords me the latitude to make a prediction.

Next year, after the bubble bursts, we will enter the era of
Information Architecture 3.0. This won't surprise Tim O'Reilly who
slyly positioned the polar bear atop the #1 Google hit for Web 2.0 and
commissioned the third edition just in time to clean up the mess.

In fact, this future is self-evident in the undisciplined, unbalanced
quest for sexy Ajaxian interaction at the expense of usability,
findability, accessibility, and other qualities of the user experience.

Of course, user hostile web sites are only the tip of the iceberg.
Beneath the surface lurk multitudes of Web 2.0 startups and Ajaxian
mashups that are way behind schedule and horribly over budget.
Apparently, nobody told the entrepreneurs about the step change in
design and development cost between pages and applications.

But, that's enough gloom and doom, as the future's quite bright,
especially for information architects who find ways to connect the
timeless principles of design and organization with new transmedia
models of interaction, co-creation, tagging, and user participation.

Defining Information Architecture

Perhaps we should take a moment, before proceeding, to review the
definition of information architecture:

1. The structural design of shared information environments.

2. The combination of organization, labeling, search, and navigation
systems within web sites and intranets.

3. The art and science of shaping information products and experiences
to support usability and findability.

4. An emerging discipline and community of practice focused on
bringing principles of design and architecture to the digital landscape.

As these definitions from Polar Bear 3.0 suggest, information
architecture extends well beyond taxonomies and the Web.

Still, there are a number of Big IA folks such as Christina Wodtke and
Adam Greenfield and Peter Merholz who feel constrained by these
definitions. And, while I truly respect their perspectives, I have to
agree, as usual, with Jesse James Garrett:

"Choosing a narrow definition for the discipline allows us to describe
a particular set of problems with precision. And such precision of
expression is absolutely required for any discipline to progress."

In his brilliant ia/recon essay, the father of Ajax articulated the
distinction between the role and the discipline:

"There is a discipline, known as information architecture; and there
is a role, known as the information architect. They have developed
more or less hand in hand, and up to now any discussion of one has
involved discussion of the other. But now that may have to change."

Once again, I agree with Jesse, though I believe it's vital,
especially now, to add a third concept of community.

[Three Circles of Information Architecture 2.0]
[Figure 1. The Three Circles of Information Architecture 3.0]

While the boundaries are naturally fuzzy, core elements of the
information architecture community include the IA Summit, Euro IA, the
Latin American IA Retreat, and the Information Architecture Institute.

Most who participate in the community's discussions, conferences, and
local events do not self-identify as information architects. In fact,
some are not very interested in the central concepts of the
discipline. Instead, they see the community as a collection of
vibrant, open forums for discussing diverse topics with smart,
sensible people.

Information Architects Under Attack

Sadly, both role and community are under attack, and in today's
political economy, where people can select their sources and choose
their news, the truth should never misunderestimate the power of
invention.

If it were only a few silly Death of IA posts, there'd be no response
required. But the current campaign, led by senior practitioners of our
sister discipline - interaction design - is worth mention.

Now, as I noted in a blog post, I've been digging deeper into
interaction design lately, and unfortunately, I keep finding
information architecture. I joined IxDA just in time for a celebration
of the total absence of information architects from Designing
Interactions by Bill Moggridge. I opened About Face 2.0 by Alan Cooper
and Robert Reimann, only to find them slamming information
architecture in the book's introduction:

"When corporate interest in the Web had reached its peak around 2000,
a discipline called information architecture (IA) seemed like it might
eventually embody the kind of design discussed here. But, even as the
financial prospects of the Web have waned, IA has largely retained its
narrow, Web-centric view of organizing and navigating content in
pages. With the apparent decline of the new economy, the fortunes of
the IA community have similarly diminished."

I find it rather astonishing that these interaction design leaders
dedicate such energy (and in their book's introduction, no less) to
denigrating information architecture as a community and discipline.

And, if I were feeling snarky, I might argue this is a manifestation
of the semantic envy of designers who would be architects of which Tog
wrote or that we're witnessing a classic case of the younger sister
competing for resources and attention. After all, there's a reason why
"information architecture" is five times more valuable than
"interaction design" in the eyes of Google AdWords.

[Google AdWords Traffic Estimator]
[Figure 2: Google AdWords Traffic Estimator]

But, I'm not feeling the least bit snarky, so instead I'll suggest
that while sibling rivalry is healthy (and fun) within reason, we
would do well to remember that we have far more in common than our
semantics may suggest. In fact, our clients can't tell us apart.

The Role: Strategies for Information Architects

I've been an interaction designer since 1994. I've designed online
communities, software products, graphical user interfaces, and
Ajax-enabled mapping mashups that leverage tags and taxonomies.

I've been an information architect since 1994. I've designed online
communities, software products, graphical user interfaces, and
Ajax-enabled mapping mashups that leverage tags and taxonomies.

Both of those statements are true, though it's also fair to say that I
am mostly known as (and self-identify as) an information architect.

My point is that in the separation of role and discipline, lies an
opportunity for information architects to explore well beyond
information architecture. Many of us have been asked by clients and
colleagues to explore not only the full breadth of structural design -
including the creation of architectures of participation - but to
serve as a vital bridge between strategy and interface, and to play an
active role in new product development. Perhaps it's time we sought
out these Big IA opportunities in a more proactive fashion.

Of course, after the bubble bursts, and we progress from the errors of
Web 2.0 into the era of Web 3.0, interaction designers would do well
to know some IA.

The Discipline: Information Architecture Strategy

The future looks bright for information architects, and that's
important because the role injects energy into the discipline. While
the vast majority of information architecture work is done by folks
who are not information architects, the specialists do play a special
role in building the community and advancing the discipline.

And, with respect to the discipline, we still have so much to learn
and unlearn, even within the "narrow" boundaries of search,
navigation, organization, and structure. The niche of search analytics
for instance, offers rich opportunities (in practice and research) to
better understand user needs and behavior, and inform the efforts of
marketing and design.

And, we have so many contexts in which to practice, from the myriad
ecologies of the Web to the transmedia environments of ambient
findability that beckon from a future not so distant. That's why I
agree with and applaud the Information Architecture Institute's
business plan to extend our practice to include a wider variety of
shared information spaces, including:

* Virtual (e.g., software, websites)

* Physical (e.g., museums, libraries, hospitals)

* Procedural (e.g., flows of information in work processes)

Of course, we shouldn't get carried away by going "beyond the Web"
since it will continue to serve as the hub - as both infrastructure
and interface - even as we create a world of UFOs and an Internet of
objects we can barely imagine.

The Community: Building a Big Tent

In recent years, I've had the wonderful opportunity to meet with
information architects and interaction designers in Australia, Brazil,
Canada, Chile, Denmark, England, Germany, Italy, Japan, the
Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States at a variety of
international and local information architecture events.

I am constantly impressed and inspired by these community members
around the world, who are among the most warm, smart, knowledgeable,
interesting, and fun people I know. They are the sustainable
competitive advantage of the information architecture community, and
for the most part, we need to keep doing what we're doing – creating
infrastructure, organizing events, and nurturing a culture that's
vibrant, open, inquisitive, and encouraging.

And, while I do think it's important that the IA Summit organizers (of
which I'm one) work harder to include topics well outside the
information architecture discipline (to keep us from getting stuck),
the summit annually lives up to its name as a magnificent high point.

And, I have to say that after reading the latest IAI Newsletter, I'm
so impressed by how far the community has come in a few short years.
The End of the Beginning

Over the past decade, information architecture has matured as a role,
discipline, and community. Inevitably, we've traded some of that
newborn sparkle for institutional stability and a substantive body of
knowledge. It's for this reason that some of the pioneers feel
restless. And, while I applaud their courage and entrepreneurial zeal,
as they step beyond the role and the discipline, I hope (for their
sake and ours) that they stay connected to the information
architecture community.

For those of us who continue to embrace the role and discipline,
there's so much going on already, and the world of Information
Architecture 3.0 will only bring more challenges, more opportunities,
and more work.

So, that's my prediction. What do you think?