The two types of information architecture 

14 April, 2020 in Handbook

Design is a structured process for managing ideas

Lots of people think of design as being about having ideas. They think “design”, then they think “creativity” and the word conjures up the idea of bringing something new into being. Design does make new things. But design is most often about finding new ways of seeing, understanding and shaping the world. Design is most often about combining things, or using and applying things in new ways to generate value.

This website is about design and information architecture in particular. If design is about managing ideas to generate value, then information architecture is about establishing a framework in which this is possible and makes sense. 

IA helps to define the type of value and the ways in which ideas can be managed and manipulated to generate that value. It’s about creating the contexts so that users or agents in experiences can act with intention to fulfil needs.

Information architecture is the context in which things make sense – the sense-making frameworks we establish and operate in.

What is information architecture?

Information architecture is the framework in which environments, things and people can meaningfully interact. Meaningful interaction is required for agents to act with predictability and intention. An agent might be a human completing a task – using a website to shop. It could be a machine or a bit of software consuming, using or transforming information for some intended purpose.

Predictability means any of these types of ‘agent’ can reasonably predict what an action will result in. Predictability is a pre-requisite for acting with intention. When an agent understands the range of possible actions and can predict likely consequences of their actions they’re operating in a meaningful and helpful information architecture. They understand what is possible and can take action to try to fulfil their needs and desires.

Information architectures can overlap and interact. Information architectures can be cultures and conventions. Information architectures can be implicit or explicit. They can be progressively revealed. They can be fixed and static or evolve based on patterns and rules. They can be shared. But they can also just be an individual perspective. So let’s start with a definition of two types of information architecture.

Individual perspectives & Embedded environmental signals

We all carry our own unique perspective, experiences and knowledge with us into every new experience. This framework constitutes a large proportion of the information architecture of the experience. But the environment also has an information architecture which encourages you to adopt a shared perspective. 

Imagine a bench, placed facing out to sea – a designer (or information architect) has introduced an element into the environment that encourages a certain perspective or way of seeing the world. The same can be true for apps, websites and any digital or physical environment. The information we embed and make accessible helps us to experience and understand the world in a structured way. A menu on a website tells you the most important areas within that digital environment. Interfaces communicate the range of actions and interactions you can perform. The extent to which this ‘coercive perspective’ or Environmental information architecture is effective will affect the type of meaning making that you’re able to do….

We live in information. Every environment has meaning embedded in it that we can interpret. Even that bench, facing out the sea might have information. Perhaps there is a plaque with the name of a loved one. But there might be other types of information to nudge your meaning making in a certain direction. Perhaps the sky conveys information about an imminent rain storm. The location of the sun in the sky holds information about the time of day. No matter where a person finds themselves, they’re surrounded by information. 

Pasted Graphic.png

Individual information architecture is the personal perspective or frame that we bring to every experience.

Environmental information architecture is the IA that is embedded into an information environment. It will almost always direct meaning making and understanding.

Experiences happen in a combination of these two architectures.

Experiences are the result of an interaction between these two types of meaning-making architecture – the unique perspective of the user and their decoded representation of the embedded architecture in the environment.

Pasted Graphic 1.png

Imagine the three scenarios depicted in the picture above. Each column describes a different mix of the two types of information architecture. The pink column represents the individual information architecture and the yellow the environmental. The dotted line represents the level of information architecture (or meaning making context) that needs to exist for the experience in an environment to make any sense at all.

In scenario A we see a partnership where the agent and the environment both contribute to the meaning making. The agent is able to bring their intention to achieve results within the defined environment. 

Scenario B is a little more coercive or directive. The information architecture limits the options for meaning making. 

You might say that comparing A-B is like comparing a novel with the movie adaptation. You’ve probably got more opportunities to project meaning when interpreting a novel than a big screen adaptation. For the movie the actors, director and crew have already taken some of the meaning-making decisions, so you’re left with less to do. 

In scenario C we see the reverse of B. There’s a vacuum. So in order for the experience to make sense the individual has to work overtime. This increases the cognitive load that we place the agent under. It’s also much more likely that they won’t be able to pull the experience up the level of making sense. They might go unsatisfied or unable to complete their task because the environment they found themselves in just didn’t make sense or actively got in their way. And the resulting experience might be different from that of another agent experiencing the same environment – there’s less reliability and predictability for everyone.

Intention and context

Design is the result of intentional activity to arrange elements to create the product of a design. So:

Design (the verb) describes a process for managing ideas and activities to produce an intended result which generates value.

A Design is the output of that design process

I’m not sure a design can exist without some form of design process.

But information architecture can exist without an IA creating it. Information architecture is carried around in everyone’s heads – individual IA. And Environmental IA can also exist without conscious design/architectural effort. This ‘unintentional IA’ is one reason why the practice of information architecture is important to cultivate. Without intentional focus and attention, the IA within a design can easily work counter to the designers intention.

Unintentional IA is everywhere – it’s the unintended, meaning-making context that envelopes individuals as they enter into experiences. As we’ve seen with the columns, if you leave the meaning-making context to chance, then you’re dependent on the experiencing-agent to make more of the meaning. And there’s another consequence. Because there is always information embedded in every environment, if you haven’t consciously shaped it, there’s a chance the IA will work counter to your intention as a designer or information architect.

Agents will always be directed by signals in the environment. They always combine their own context and experience with signals in the environment. The intentional or unintended architecture always provides a shaping context in which agents make meaning, understand and take action. This is why intentional information architecture is better than unintentional IA. Not only can it help people make meaning more efficiently and with less effort. But because you’re playing a bigger role in the transaction of meaning making you’re able to exert an influence and direct the meaning making to fulfil more of your goals and objectives… You contribute more to the experience.

Imagine this: I’m sat on a bench and a stranger sits down next to me. In one version of the story I don’t say anything. The stranger talks and talks and talks and I’m just the passive recipient. The conversation could be about anything – I literally have no say in the meaning and information. I might listen attentively, zone out or stand up and wander off – it’s pretty unpredictable. I make no meaningful contribution in the information exchange. It’s like scenario C where there is a shortfall in the information partnership between agent and information architect.

Untitled_Artwork.jpg

But it’s very similar if in the same scenario I participate, but I choose my utterances by flicking through a book of idioms and choosing them at random…

Stranger on the bench: Did you see the match last night?

Me (choosing a random phrase): Let’s not beat around the bush.

Often, when information architecture is not consciously considered during a design project we achieve the same results. We create information environments that combine conventions – like idioms. But the interaction between the elements can create unintended meaning and information which makes it harder for the agent to act. It results in things that are less meaningful and useful.

Being an intentional information architect

So the question that this website will try to answer is:

How do you make the interactions between agents and between agents and environments more predictable by embedding meaning as architecture for people to discover and share…

I think the secret is to consciously attend to the elements that create and communicate information. You can then more easily imagine and shape how this information will be used.

Good information architecture creates a context in which agents can adopt your perspective and effortlessly decode your intended information. But they can also retain their autonomy and intention in moments of utility – to do the thing they want to do. They combine the two types of information architecture to create their experience. 

Architecting both

As a designer or information architect you need to be able to think about how to construct (or help construct) both types of information architecture – individual and environmental. 

Throughout design projects the design will contain embedded information architecture. You want to have constructed this to help the agents who occupy your information environment to achieve their objectives. Each agent will bring their own context, motivations and understanding to an experience. But you can help to shape and direct the experience through the choices you make about the information architecture. Then you can create information environments full of intentional information architecture – architecture that enables agents to act with purpose to fulfil the objectives that your design sets out to meet.

During the design process, you also have some responsibility for the creative context that the team you’re working with is occupying. Information architecture is the context in which things make sense. So you can increase the effectiveness of any team by information architecting the context you share as you work.

As an information architect you can bring your skills to bear to help team members to create information architectures that enable meaningful collaboration. By building shared architectures through shared language, understanding and perspective you’re able to collaborate and communicate meaningfully. 

I’ve begun by trying to describe in broad terms the fundamental ideas and language that I’ll be using throughout. Some of the language might feel overly complicated, but there are reasons behind each of the words I’ve chosen:

Some definitions:

Agent – an agent could be a person or something digital. I want to suggest that information architecture is consumed by human and digital agents who use the meaning-making context that IA creates to understand the range of available actions and predict the likely outcomes of those actions. 

Information environment – the perceivable context in which experiences happen.

Individual information architecture – the context, beliefs, knowledge and perspective of every individual agent who will experience your information architecture.

Environmental information architecture – the intended or unintended information that the environment conveys which directs and shapes meaning-making.

Why no updates – project pause

19 November, 2019 in Uncategorized

Hello,

Long time no see. I just wanted to let you know that I’m currently a co-chair for the IA Conference in New Orleans. I’m pouring all of my attention in my “spare time” into that – so this project has taken a creative pause. I’ll be back in May 2020.

Dan Ramsden’s Spectrum of intervention

23 July, 2019 in Ramblings from Ramsden

Information architecture often deals in the invisible. I make my living out of moulding concepts, categories, constraints and assumptions. They’re invisible building blocks. But they’re definitely not inconsequential just because they’re immaterial. They’re just hard to think about. They’re hard to picture.

Without a concerted effort to concretise our ideas, it’s harder for IAs to play a substantive part in the design process and decision making. Information architecture implies and empowers meaning-making. But until we can communicate it in language (words or pictures) IA can be a periphery concern.

As so much of my work can be invisible and immaterial (at least at the early stages of the process) I’ve always prioritised making things visible. I’ve taken the view that a bad idea is better than no idea. And that a faulty description gives us something to critique. It moves us forward from uncertainty to a greater degree of consensus. Even if the consensus is that we recognise we don’t all yet share the same view of the problem or solution, at least we agree on something.

Getting IA ideas into words and pictures increases our influence. But it also helps us develop our understanding. Each attempt to describe an idea forces us to rehearse our understanding and argument. Communicating IA is a form of deliberate practice – it’s what we do, and at the same time preparation for what we do.

Today I thought I’d share one of the ways I describe how I build and exert influence — Dan Ramsden’s Spectrum of Intervention. I created it when I was thinking about how I get stuff done. I wanted to visualise the different states and skillsets that I should develop and practice to develop and exert influence. This is drawn from my perspective of working within an organisation. But I think some elements, or the thought process behind it might be useful to all IAs.

Dan Ramsden's Spectrum of intervention

I know it’s a bit overwhelming. It’s in the shape of a clock. Situations and relationships can move in either direction around the face-and even jump around a bit too. But I like to keep as many relationships/situations between the 12ish to 5 o’clock-ish position. Anywhere in the green is good.

Agreement

This section marks agreement, where I can actively direct the situation and exert influence with lower levels of effort and engagement.

In this zone I’m goal oriented. I’m probably exploiting deep levels of trust. If I’m consolidating a relationship that began in disagreement, then I’m listening and confirming we still agree. Then I’m building and developing –actively shaping the labels and language people use. I’m keeping my promises and encouraging people to actively agree with me. I might need to do some maintenance, keeping in regular contact and checking that our language, beliefs and behaviours are still on track. But for a lot of the time I can focus on delivering work, rather than working on the relationship.

Unaware

The section that hovers around 5 o’clock to 6 is a dangerous area — the end of office hours. I’ve probably slipped into passive monitoring and have less engagement in these relationships/situations.

Here I could easily smash into the ‘Roadblock of unrecognised disagreement.’ This is where people are assuming they agree, maybe using the same words — but have different assumptions or meaning behind them. This is dangerous. You should treat the sign as a roadblock and dead-end. Use it to encourage you to regularly wander back into ‘Maintenance’ even if you have a high degree of confidence in a relationship or team. Maintenance sees you exploring language, comparing the words and labels you use — finding time to talk face to face to share and shape a common perspective.

When you’re not actively developing, maintaining or looking out for relationships (pushing at the periphery) you can easily wander into ‘The fog of confusion’. I think of ‘The fog of confusion’ as containing people and situations that I don’t even know exist. There might be someone with power and influence who disagrees with me, but we’re yet to meet — we might be working against each other without even realising it. Anyone in the fog doesn’t have all the information they need.

It’s great when you get out of the fog backwards — where you find someone predisposed to agree with you — a nice, new ally. But often the only way out of the fog is forward into the blue zone.

Maybe they agree?

The Blue zone of ‘Maybe…’ represents the relationships and situations that you need more information about. As soon as I enter this stage I (most often) focus on facts. Developing a higher degree of factual confidence in the situation means I can start to try to exert influence, underpinned by the knowledge and my expertise.

But there might be times when I need to prioritise feelings over facts. This is more likely to occur with people predisposed to disagree with me [I’m not sure why, I’m lovely]. But here, no matter how many facts I have, if I don’t try to build rapport or some understanding for the antipathy, I’m not going to get anywhere.

I switch from being topic-oriented, focused on the work, to focusing on the people. I do a bit more listening than talking at this stage — it’s important to remember that listening isn’t passive. The best kind of listening is active and it can still be a form of influence to let someone talk.

Disagreement

Depending on the scale of difference of opinion, I’m likely to try to use negotiation techniques. I want the other person to give me the solution to the issue of disagreement, rather than have to invent one myself. So the most powerful question in this situation is often, “What’s stopping us achieving our goal?” — that might be a specific goal or just the goal of finding a common perspective or understanding.

Where we’re in serious disagreement and I have a high stake in the outcome I can directly challenge. I can still use questions to push the solution-finding to my partner. “How can I do that?” and “How can I accept / defend that?” are powerful questions to try to enforce some empathy on the other person and give them a chance to see things from my perspective. I’m trying to move them to some area of agreement. I can then work on consolidating and expanding that and then inching them over into the green zone.

So that’s a quick overview of ‘The Spectrum of intervention’. It’s another example of how I think IAs can help shape situations by describing them. And it hints at the power of adopting a more reflective practice.