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

By: David Cuyler

David Cuyler — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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).

By: David Heller

David Heller — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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

By: Kirsten Miller

Kirsten Miller — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

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….