Information Architecture vs. Web 2.0

I've been thinking a lot about information architecture and user experience design lately. Both (somewhat interchangeable) fields intrigue me on many levels. I've always been the type to somewhat obsessively organize things. Well, certain things anyway. Structuring and organizing data is becoming increasingly complex each day, and I think there's a real need out there for someone to attempt to make sense of it all.

As part of my two.point web project (see inaugural post), we are required to write a creative brief outlining things like: intended concept, target audience, project goals, user experience considerations, technical issues/concerns, and a site-map. There were some grumblings in the class about this part of the projects, but I was elated. As someone who finds himself leaning towards the IA concepts, it seemed a great opportunity to develop strategies and documentation for my site proposal.

What was particularly interesting was that the comps for the site (Photoshop or fireworks mock-ups that show general interface layout) were due for class critique two weeks before the creative brief. I think most of us in the class are used to working this way-drawing up an interface first and only doing wire-frame/creative brief/site-maps when required to do so. And this way of working in some way mirrors the design strategies advocated by many of the new Web 2.0 start-ups, particularly the folks at 37 Signals.

In their book/manifesto Getting Real, one of the concepts they advocate is designing the interface first. Since the product is the interface, insofar as the end-user is concerned, it allows more time to tweak it until it's just right. The book outlines their business and design philosophies in a breezy, conversational style. Their approach emphasizes simplicity in both design and the underlying functionality of the applications they develop. And they have proven themselves spectacularly. I use Backpack all the time, and our class utilizes Basecamp to keep each other up to date on our projects and ask each other for help with problems that arise (usually involving CSS issues! ). These are truly elegant applications.

Many of the new web applications and services are being designed and implemented by small teams, or sometimes by just one person. Increasingly, a lot of them are developing these apps from the interface-down; they are not using creative briefs, wire-frames, free-listing, or card sorting-all methods used by information architects. They operate lean, and their products do a few things really well. And it works, mostly.

But how do these ideas translate in the large corporate sites, for example, some of which span hundreds of pages?. The simplicity espoused by so many Web 2.0 start-ups doesn't always mesh with corporate vision or particularly heavy e-commerce sites. Navigation issues for these large sites is a real problem, requiring thoughtfulness and understanding to implement coherently. There's a real need for taxonomies and clear hierarchical structure. And unfortunately, not enough developers realize these issues. The simplest of the Web 2.0 sites utilize these same methods: the navigation is usually straight-forward and logical, and follows a flow that makes sense. And these interface guidelines are based upon years of work in the information architecture and user experience fields.

There is plenty of room on the Web for both the simple and the complex, and knowing the best way to structure a site is essential. It's obvious to me that proponents of each of these methodologies can benefit greatly from the other.

Explore posts in the same categories: Information Architecture, Web 2.0, Web Design