Comments on Why I'm Not Calling Myself an Information Architect Anymore

Adam Greenfield — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:12 GMT

Never meant to imply that you weren’t a new-school generalist. ; . )

Unfortunately, I’m just not sure there’s much of a middle ground here – or at least it will take someone wiser and more Solomonic than I to point it out. This probably stems from the fact that I *don’t* actually think “information architecture” is the best title for the JJG-style tasks – I think using that particular label for those tasks is acceding to entirely too narrow a definition of information.

I am actually working on a book explaining at appropriate length why I feel this way, so this probably isn’t the best or the most appropriate place to continue. For now, let’s just leave it at this: I respectfully disagree.

Cheers,
A.

David Heller — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:12 GMT

But Adam …
Why do you presume that I’m not a generalist? When I say I’m “old-school” I mean I’m pure slacker internet raised roots. I have no formal education, except for a degree in Anthropology that some feel I make use of from time to time.

I also said nothing about the use of the word “architect”. I love that word and when I own the process and can direct the resources used for design as well as the processes for design I will claim that word as part of my title. but I will call myself a User-Experience Architect, b/c IA is just a small piece of what I do as that architect: Interaction Design, usabilty testing, information design, etc.

I also said I came to this conclusion b/c I respect those that actually do use more formal IA. People like Peter M. (pick one), Louis R. and Jesse James Garnett use formal IA to categorize and organize content. They create vocabularies. They do Information Architecture. You can’t call it anything else but that. Not all of them have formal MLS degrees, but even without the degree they have formal understanding of what IA is in this non-generic sense.

So it is my ability to separate what I do from what they do, that I must stop calling what I do Information Architecture. You might do this level of IA and that is great. Join their club and be fruitful and multiply, but the vast majority of people on the SIGIA List do not, I guarantee it. When I was hiring IAs (your version) back a year ago, maybe 1 of every 10 applicants knew real IA processes and methods.

Louis is trying to promote IA … I didn’t read the results of his poll yet, but it seems to me the biggest thing that IA needs is legitimacy. I don’t mean User Experience, btw. I mean IA. IAs need legitimacy to get on the right projects, to be part of the right teams, and so that their jobs are better understood, and that their value-add is better understood. Confusing IA w/ UX is just hurting the cause.

- dave

Adam Greenfield — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:40:06 GMT

I’ve avoided this dialogue until now, because I think it’s generally known that I have the precisely opposite opinion from David’s and I didn’t want to be a shit-disturber if I couldn’t add anything new or productive.

But I’ve been kicking this over for a few days, and I think I’ve come up with something that sums up my discomfort with his position. My POV probably stems from a few biographical and experiential quiddities – I’m *so* not old-school, I’m a generalist by instinct & have no formal training in anything even remotely relevant to the field, etc. – but I hope it resonates for some of you.

There’s a good reason we use the word “navigate,” as in “navigating informational spaces.” The primate nervous system evolved in physical space, and happens to be well-adapted to problems of finding its way in physical space. It maps other problems which feel (however incorrectly) analogous onto the problem of doing so. This appears to be true even if the “space” to be navigated has many more dimensions than the watch-out-for-that-tree three we’re used to.

Well, who is it that devises strategies for the organization of physical space? Traditionally, we call this person an “architect.” Too, as has already been pointed out, the architect marshals the resources of a team of designers, engineers, etc. in his or her attempt to find acceptable solutions. For all these reasons, I feel that “information architect” is a globally appropriate title.

To me, it doesn’t matter that the term first accidentally arose in this or that field (or that this or that visionary but sloppy conceptualist applied it to a book about practitioners who worked in a field that already had a perfectly good name, in an attempt to be marketable). *It describes to a high degree of fidelity what we do*, and to me this descriptive fidelity is the best index of the term’s usefulness: I surely architect information, but I’ve rarely if ever touched the LIS aspects of any job I’ve worked on.

I do agree that tribalism serves no one well, but my response is to point out more-or-less hard-assedly that if the title doesn’t sit well with you, you’re free to not use it to label yourself. In my opinion, you can’t argue away its suitability for the work that we do.

RuthK — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:40:06 GMT

David,

Thanks for reminding us about the original point you were trying to make. I can certainly appreciate it, and here’s why: In the one job I have had where my title actually was Information Architect, I did exactly what you describe, among other things. Most of my work was designing modular information products/applications and developing metamodels and data dictionaries. I considered this work information architecture because I was actually setting up a framework for content—i.e., architecture. The GUI design work felt, literally, like a different discipline.

The problem I have encountered since then is that as I look for a job now (after layoffs), most of the Information Architecture positions are truly User Experience Design and Usability Analysis positions, and I have developed a sense of inadequacy because those are not my strong suits. That’s my problem, but I just wanted to point it out because it supports your argument.

For many proprietary applications and web sites, usability engineering and user experience design may be more than enough because the app only has to work in one configuration at a time. For web services, applications often need to be flexible and modular, and that is where I think the IA work is mostly needed—to give the content and functionality contours in ways that correlate packaging from a sales & marketing perspective with user-centered design and database management. This can also be said of information distribution—content needs to be modeled and packaged in a way that it can flow from system to system more easily, and I think this is another job for the likes of an IA.

Mike — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:11 GMT

I have always been intruiged, confounded and slightly amused by the way terms like Information Architect are picked up and used by people. In the 15 years that I’ve been around this field I’ve been a “Communication Designer”, “Document Designer,” and “Information Designer” at various groups. I have rejected the title Informaiton Architect, though. It simply doesn’t feel right for the general kinds of communications projects that I do, although I’ve come across others who have made Information Architect the next stop on the user-centered design train.

All the terms lack percision to me becuase they are picked up and used by so many people—and they certainly seem to confuse clients. I’ve yet to find one that I feel comfortable with. In my last group we all used the title “designer” regardless of our specific pont-of-view or the output we produce.

My all time favorite confusing term? A group that called themselves “Design Integrationists.”

Betsy Martens — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:11 GMT

As someone pointed out already, this is perhaps mostly a question of self-identification. After listing all my diverse “hats” on a business card, then (joyfully) feeling empowered to lump them all under “information architect,” I now have settled on a tag line to do the job. My business is information design (encompassing more than Web stuff), I use the title “information architect,” and the tagline reads: “Content and the space it occupies.” So much better than a big stack of hats.

brandy — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:10 GMT

why a name is important?

Something for a company to put on a job list for one thing. I am tired of all these ass backwards job descriptions with the wrong title, or a weird title.

Designer can often mean production design.

It helps when it comes to getting a paycheck, title = money in a lot of classical work environments. I am aware though that web dev isn’t exactly a classical environment :)

It gives some people a sense of worth, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. People like to know what’s expected of them.

Madonnalisa — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:10 GMT

iOMAR

That’w what I’m calling the work that my group does. I wanted to avoid IA at all costs since it was so associated with websites only.

It’s definitely a big dose of the user-centered
LIS-IA…

information organization
information management
information access
information retrieval

and we do not have a mascot named Omar…yet!

Gene — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:10 GMT

I’ve always thought the “architecture” portion of “information architecture” was a bit of pompous inflation, especially when used in reference to the LIS-IA school. I mean, “information organization” and “information classification” work just as well, and are probably more descriptive.

(But I think I’m coming around to Matt’s POV that “architecture” is a useful term when we talk about the coordinating functions of Big IA.)

Anyway, I see what we do as information product design. I like that term because a) it’s simple and (I think) easy to understand, and b) it focuses on things we can control (the product and the information it delivers) rather than things we can’t (e.g. user experiences).

matt — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:40:06 GMT

haha and also – the tao that can be described is not the tao, right…

two quotes:

“Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself.
Even the finest name is insufficient to define it.
Without words, the Tao can be experienced,
and without a name, it can be known.”

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/taoism/ttcstan3.ht…

and finally:

“Names is for tombstones, baby” -Mr Big, james Bond: “Live and Let Die”
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Land/8672/lald/tomb.wa…

RuthK — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:10 GMT

I agree with David. If you look at titles for other types of roles, such as Producer, Project Manager, and Product Manager, they encompass many responsibilities and skill sets. The problems I have had with titles is that they’re often too limiting. Even Information Architect, one of the more general titles for the discipline, has been too limiting. What do you call an IA generalist (as David has described above) who also does requirements, copy writing, and project management? Maybe all it comes down to is how to represent all this stuff on a resume. It usually doesn’t matter what your title is while you’re working within an organization.

David Fiorito — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:09 GMT

When I took on my latest job as Information Architect, I found that I was called upon to do IA (labeling, taxonomy, meta-data, etc.), UX (site flows and pathing), UE (usability testing and heuristic evaluations), and UI (page layout and prototyping) work.

So what am I? I prefer the title Information Architect because, in a literal sense, that is what I do. I craft the information presented by the business for presentation to the employees and customers of the business. I am essentialy an architect.

I guess what I am saying is that, as I see it, the title of Information Architect evokes the image of a professional that crafts an information space and a traditional architect crafts living space.

I see no problem with it.

Cheers,

Dave Fiorito

Greg — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:09 GMT

What is with everyone beating the dead “identity” horse? Really, is it relevant what we call ourselves? By and large, most of us have responsibilites that dictate we take care of certain tasks and roles, usually moving through most of the IA, ID, UCD, etc. fields that we spend so much time discussing. I don’t care what we call ourselves…I may have at one point, but it seems so trivial now. The fact is, these different fields are the ROYGBIV color spectrum of a development cycle. Each is a crucial part of the whole, blending ever so delicately from one “color” to the next. Let’s stop worrying so much about what we call ourselves and move on to the work we actually do and how we do it better!

David — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:50:09 GMT

I wonder whether *any* IAs actually do *all* of the things it is claimed IAs do!

I’m pretty sure most of the IAs I know don’t have any experience with facets, categories and meta-data beyond constructing a site map or carrying out a few random card sorts every now and again.

And I know that most people I talk to smirk when I say I’m a “Customer Experience Architect”.

Such is life… one day we will all be web designers again and that will be the end of it!

Cheers, d

Lyle Kantrovich — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 03:40:06 GMT

David, I also didn’t want to claim to be an “IA”—although I do some of the same things IA’s do. That’s why I selected the title I did: User Experience Architect. See a description here: http://crocolyle.blogspot.com/2002_05_05_crocolyle_archiv…