Comments on What's in a Name? Or, What Exactly Do We Call Ourselves?

Kirsten Miller — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:56 GMT

I would have liked to have seen George’s concept of the I4 “core” and its surrounding disciplines illustrated in true information design form! Then we might have noticed how it gently suggests that We Are the Center of the Universe! Seriously, though, joking aside… I, too, feel the urge for specificity of terms, because I don’t see how anyone outside can take seriously a *discipline* that can’t even name itself. But I think “I4” hits the *sub*disciplines spot-on. Now, if we could just come up with the name for the greater displine that encompasses them all….

David Heller — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:56 GMT

I think Adam is doing both a service and injustice at the same time. To say that IA is whatever we want to call is is a cop out. Why? B/c there are so many different opinions about what IA is and isn’t. Not everyone interested in “this field” have had or currently have the exposure to IA as a micro-discipline, yet are definitely part of this community. On the other hand there are members of the IA community who I wouldn’t think are a part of what I consider to be what “boxes and arrows” (the allusion to site diagramming and thus site structure and behavior structure) represents.

To be honest I don’t want to be a part of a generic grouping that doesn’t discern the differences between library sciences and visual design (and everything in between).

The I4 approach is definitely a neat sentiment, but so is User Experience.

The problem that I’m having here is IA is a corrupted term. As someone already pointed out in much of our industry it means database administrator or similar system admin. In other parts is means what literally Wurman represented (pre-Digital Age) of the person who is a content author, visual designer, and structural designer all in one.

I’m noticing that this discussion is growingly become a head point for us as a group and it has wider issues, then just what to call ourselves. It is about what do people call us? How do we break the layman’s annoying pronouncements that either, we are usability engineers, or the ones who make things pretty? That is what is important to me and I don’t think that I4 or IA takes on that issue at all.

If we were to have a departement in a university what would it be? Informaiton Architecture? I think not. Especially at the academic level IA is a specific term that doesn’t encompass all we need.

Anyway … that’s all I’ze gots for now.
—dave

Dell — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:49:56 GMT

I like George’s notion of I4. It encompasses all of the things we do. I like the idea that some folks are specialists in certain areas and call themselves one of the I’s, or they serve a more general role and do multiple I’s. But what about all those who do “front end work” and have no idea we’re here. How big is the I4 community really?

I’ve been thinking about all the programmers, developers, marketers, analysts, webmasters, etc. out there who practice “our stuff” with or without knowing it. As George mentioned, systems/web sites are designed all the time (more often than not, it seems) without a user centered approach. What should our approach be towards people who practice our craft and don’t even realize it? How far out should this I4 circle go?

Maybe it’s like calling yourself a musician. If you say, “I’m a musician”, that could mean you play for the London Symphony or that you hum your own tunes in the shower. And even if you do hum your own tunes and have never been paid anything for it in your life, you still might be really good at it.

We could choose to make the circle big enough for everyone who wants in, and leave it up to the rest of the world to decide if we’re good or not. Maybe we should just practice our craft and have fun jammin’.

David Cuyler — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:47:42 GMT

Very interesting article. I like what _you_ say IA is. In the context of the US Department of Energy, for whom we do most of our work, IA has a bit of a different connotation (more like “Systems Architecture”). Given that context, here is what _we_ say IA is:
“Information Architecture is the art and science of system design and construction resulting in an orderly, purposeful arrangement of applications, data stores, services, components, devices and networks that effectively support the mission of the organization. The work of information architecture is guided by a set of adopted standards and processes representing a style and method of design and construction, and is evidenced by an integrated set of system models. The goal of information architecture is to ensure that technology is leveraged on behalf of the organization – to add value to the work of the organization.”

We see a number of facets of architecture, which are embeded in this definition: practice, structure, style, method, description and client advocacy. I see these same themes running through your article – hmmm.

Much of this is straight out of the dictionary definition of “architecture,” with a twist of “system” added to give it specificity. Also added are touches of influence from John Zachman and WWISA (World-Wide Institute of Software Architects).