Adventures of an Information Architect

What's in a Name?
by Thom Haller - June 2001

As a teacher of both information architecture and information design, I've had many opportunities to reflect on the differences between these labels (and among the other zillion terms we use to categorize people who structure information).

As we know, labels matter. I recall my own label-searching seven years ago. At the time, I was a technical writer/instructional designer with an interest in cognitive science/visual communication. By the early nineties, I'd spent ten years in professional communication, working as a "research associate," "senior scientist," "corporate communicator," and "documentation specialist."

"Perhaps I'm a data stylist," I recall thinking about the time I discovered Richard Saul Wurman and reclassified myself as an information architect. I believed, like Wurman, we could learn strategies for making information more understandable. I believed we could reeducate others to see the "hidden" value in information for improving organizational performance. Did my belief in structure, process, and performance make me an information architect? I intended to find out.

Before too long, I had an opportunity to teach a course in "Document and Information Design." Armed with Karen Schriver's Dynamics in Document Design and Donald Norman's The Design of Everyday Things, my university students explored ways we could envision the reader as an active participant and major stake-holder in the design/development of documents. Did they care if they were document designers or information designers? Not really. Did they consider themselves budding information architects? Probably not.

Six months later, my colleague and I launched a course, "Information Architecture" to adult learners. Although we found the label interesting, it didn't matter to students as much as the necessity to deal with the increasing onslaught of online information.

By the time we developed the course structure for a 2-day IA class, we were able use Rosenfeld/Morville's text Information Architecture for the World Wide Web to complement the class. Their perspectives were useful, as my students had shifted once more—from communication/information professionals to web site builders.

These students had a job to do. They were captivated by the research only to the extent that it helped them build communication products in which their users could find information, use it, and appreciate the experience. As web-builders, they wanted strategies for "real world" IA—developing communication products in the context of people, politics, pitfalls, and possibilities.

This remains true today. Not surprisingly, my information design students want this context as well. Few care if they are called information designers. But all want to find ways to present information with the user in mind.

So do these labels matter? I offer a resounding "sort of." A new label supported me as I began to differentiate my work from that of a traditional "writer." But labels can thwart us as well. For example, I have worked with web writers who were not willing to think visually (after all, they were "writers"—they believed they should attend to words only). Will they be able to help their users? Probably not.

The label Information Architect carries with it real world implications. As information architects we must help users see the untapped potential of information structure. We must strategize, plan, render, manage, build, and measure so we can help organizations improve performance, boost productivity, and increase profitability. Users need results, not labels.

© 2002, Info dot Design, Inc.