<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Eric Moorehead</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/3553</link>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:42:48 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Eric Moorehead</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Nice article.  Solid premise, well stated.  I also agree with many of the comments regarding organizational challenges to good information architecture.  In my experience, not all stakeholders truly understand holistic information architecture, or worse they confuse it with technical design, layout, and simple taxonomy.  Information objects in &lt;span class="caps"&gt;CMS&lt;/span&gt; solutions tend to move, grow, change, and evolve.  If you take a traditional IT structural approach to setting up taxonomy in a &lt;span class="caps"&gt;CMS&lt;/span&gt; you are bound to fail.  Managing information architecture simply has to be user-centric, and is more about understanding user experiences and interactions than it is about portals, channels, pages, and features.   Ideally all stakeholders should have a basic understanding of IA, but whoever is responsible for your &lt;span class="caps"&gt;CMS&lt;/span&gt; must be committed to it.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/better-content#content_5592</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/better-content#content_5592</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:42:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Eric Moorehead</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
