Posts Tagged ‘information architecture’


Changing thinking; changing practice

15 March 2009

I have been saying for a while now that 2009 is going to be a great year. Looking around the world at the state of the global economy; the precarious nature of financial markets and institutions; the number of jobs being shed; and an ongoing realisation that our approach to consumption, growth, sustainability and nature are being fundamentally rethought; it is hard to pick up on why I am so optimistic.

On the one hand, these critical challenges to our established way of life – and the aspirations of developing countries – are confronting. They force us to question the legitimacy of two generations of leadership beginning in the ’70s, supported by government deregulation and the rise of communication & information technologies.

But on the other hand, they present us with real opportunities to restructure our society around a new set of priorities, and driven by a philosophy of equity, fairness, sustainability, and stewardship. This is an exciting – if uncertain – time for those of us engaged in the business of designing products, services, organizations, industries or countries. Suddenly, we are faced with design challenges on a massive scale; challenges where traditional approaches to problem-solving cannot be relied upon to deliver real, significant, solutions.

The role of design in meeting these challenges is becoming more and more recognised in business circles, albeit in the guise of ‘innovation’. Whilst the label may be different, the underlying message is clear: linear, incremental approaches to problem solving will not work to meet the challenges facing us today – in business, at the national, or the global scale.

As this recognition has dawned within the business community it has coincided with reflection on my own part about what it is that I want to be doing in my career. And what, really, have I been doing over the past few years.

My work in UX has been centred on the design of digital systems for business – web sites; e-commerce systems; and web-based business applications being the core part of my work for a decade. This work started with a focus on process and flow; error handling; and business logic. Over time, the work that I was doing went from the specific to the strategic – identifying opportunities for improvement in the overall business of the client; the way the operated; the nature of the service offered.

As that transition too place in my work, there has been a similar shift in thinking as to what is most important and interesting to me. In terms of practice, the centre of my approach has also shifted, taking on an increased flavour of research and analysis and, in doing so, starting to take on characteristics of design practice. You can see some of that shift in evidence in the beginnings of the writing I’m doing for Johnny Holland.

For me, Johnny represents a conscious re-alignment of my thinking around UX and the disciplines that come together to deliver those experiences to people. Although I have, for many years, advocated for interaction design as a central consideration in (in my case) Web projects, mentally I was still entrenched in an IA-centric world view. Since 2006 my thinking has migrated away from that IA-centricity towards an IxD-centric view of UX. Johnny represents a tangible recognition of that progression.

In a few short days I’ll be boarding a plane and heading to Memphis, TN to attend the 10th IA Summit. It will likely be the only time I attend. So if you’re going to be at IAS, be sure to say ‘Hi’.

In 2010, if I am able to make it to the US for a conference, it will be for Interaction ‘10 run by the Interaction Design Association (IxDA). The conference, attendees, presentations, location and general community are a much closer reflection of who and what I am these days. And although I’m by no means located at the core of this community in terms of skills or practice, it is certainly where my head and heart are located when it comes to my own work. What I now recognise as my tribe.


Information Architecture, Content & SEO

19 December 2008

I was reminded during a discussion this morning of the interplay between information architecture, content and SEO in the success of a Web site. I thought back to a thread on the IA Institute’s mail list from July that touched on one element of this issue, and I figured I might as well extract that conversation and make it available here.

The initial question in the thread came from Jenny Wallace, a candidate for the masters in Interaction Design and Information Architecture at the Univ. of Baltimore. Jenny asked:

“How Search Engine Optimization and Information Architecture can build a reciprocal trust relationship between information providers and information consumers. Any thoughts?”

My response was this:

“The notion of trust in this relationship is primarily one – to my mind – of meeting expectations for the information consumers. The consumer will, frequently, land on a page deep into the site content hierarchy and will immediately begin assessing the page for relevancy based on the high-level content labels presented to them. This is clearly where a partnership is most strongly required between IA and SEO practitioners, so that the visually-dominant labels (headings, titles, sub-headings, bold terms etc) are closely aligned to the original search terms that brought the consumer to the site in the first place.

Trust online is a highly fragile thing, and visitors to a site – particularly when originating within a search engine – will be twitchy to begin, so it is imperative that relevance is established quickly, clearly and unambiguously. It should be the case that the higher-level content labels are the ones most closely tied to the search terms – and it’s here that the semantic structure of the HTML comes to the fore.

It is also important to recognise the conflict inherent in the relationship between SEO and IA. Although the goal of SEO should be to attract pre-qualified potential consumers to site, quite often this is interpreted to mean “attract as many people as possible”. For the IA, this represents a real conflict of interest: they’re being tasked with structuring site content to suit the needs of an audience who – by rights – should never be considered in the information architecture.

And it is here that trust can be destroyed very, very quickly: SEO tactics that are designed to draw in visitors with only a very tenuous interest in the actual product or service on offer; and those visitors being presented with content that has little or no relevance to their needs.

One last point: the information architecture strategy for a site must explicitly accommodate visitor behaviour that does not initiate on the home page. Each and every page must provide the sort of context and relevancy triggers for the visitor so that they can not only decide to continue their journey on the site, but also can see clearly how to commence that journey.”

Regular readers of this blog may have come across another post of mine from July that listed out a bunch a questions that UX practitioners can use as a way to frame the development of a UX strategy for their (web-centric) project. Two of those questions were:

  1. If people arrive at your site somewhere other than the home page, how will you provide them context and communicate both intent and possibilities?
  2. How will people find your site? And how do the activities you undertake to encourage them tie in with your other design consideration?

[Note: they actually appear as questions 13 & 14 in the original post.]

The issue of establishing trust and credibility in the minds of visitors arriving via search engines can be seen to be a sub-component of the overall set of responses one might make to these two questions. Trust and credibility should be two of the considerations when formulating your overall content and SEO strategies, and these should tie in to the information architecture you design for the site.

These three areas: information architecture, content, and SEO, need to be considered together in order to meaningfully address the two questions above; and one is not really complete unless it is being complemented by the other two.