info, how does the metaphor of the architect in wodtke's post do anything to help inspire, iluminate, what-have-you the line of thought? why even bring it up when it is just as easy and far more direct to say info architects should consider x, y, and z in their design? the whole metaphorical comparison does absolutely nothing for me. i'm glad ia's somehow find it inspiring, but i hardly see the point.

yes, thats why i bring this example up: pomme de terre = apple of the earth = potato
you don't see french speaking people confusing their potatos with their apples. and the potato doesn't have an identity crisis nor does the apple feel encroached upon....excepy by human teeth.
similarly, it is perfectly clear that an "information architect" is not an architect. slartibart cute, but not very applicable in this case. i think you completely missed the point then.

slartibartfest Its now more of a proactive title than a consequential one.

history is never simply proactive. it is imagination that makes everything else contingent and not necessary. deterministic positivism is the grave imagination imagines for itself.

I don't have an issue with the title "information architect". I think that the title "architect" is being used more frequently in media. (Example: "She is the architect of the program") Meaning in simplest terms it was created by her.

The only thing that sometimes annoys me is when I am looking for a job and all these computer jobs come up...I don't want to be a Information/Programmer/ and whatever else people use to make certain jobs sound important/complex.

I just want more clarity between those in the building/architecture trades and "Info architects" and other random computer jobs.

ah, but a building designer or an 'architectural designer', ie someone that designs buildings, cannot use the title 'architect' unless approved by his/her peers.

So, it should be the same for anyone, period.

I'm much more interested in the pragmatic literal connections between A and IA, rather than analogy and or metaphor. Questions like 'are bits and data more like space, or more like material?' are a bit short-sighted and futile for me. One is physical, and the other is virtual. It seems to be to be the same as trying to make metaphors [metaphors, mind you, not empirical science, which I will get to in a moment] between solid, liquid or gaseous states. The question is 'Why? What purpose could that ultimately serve?'

What actually does juice me about this issue is the potential for real intellectual, professional and technological reciprocity. And in this I think IA has benefited quite a bit from 'Architectural' thought processes and logic.

What I'm ultimately interested in is a real time virtual model that acts and performs as the building would in reality. For example, rather than working in 5-7 different programs each with their own strengths, can we somehow synthesize it all into one massive model that everyone can work on simultaneously? This sounds like BIM as we know it, but it would be much more dynamic. For example, tweak the facade, see the effects in real time, rather than exporting from Microstation to Ecotect. Instead of calling a meeting, one could play with the steel layout dynamically like sketching, in real time, with the structural engineer being dialed in. Change a material, get a dynamically updated cost estimate.

I realize this is a longish post, but I hope the implications are clear. The amount of data the architect manages is immense. I want to streamline all of the tedious tasks to the point that they are nearly seamless in the overall process. I feel like most teams spend 20% of their time on actual design and about %80 on other things [admin, management, analysis, presentation, etc]. This proportion should be inverted.





Also, the debate over whether Architects somehow carry more weight than Info. Architect's, or whether IA's have the 'right' to appropriate the word is kind of tired and self-important. I think both professions provide a necessary service.

Nice post, jp, and not too long at all.

You've made a leap that IAs would work on building projects, which hasn't been implied before and is certainly a small portion of the IA field, but would be a very fruitful combination of the fields. What you're talking about is, to me, a major goal of computer technology in the built world (as opposed to visual form making)

LB,

I think, to a certain extent, the relationships between IA and A are already blurring. Obviously BIM, geometical parametrics and other things, such as merely writing a VB script to get a certain facade effect, already show intellectual and technological reciprocity. That said, I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg as to what is possible. However, I do think there should some kind of differentiation, and that differentiation is actually beneficial. I think there's enormous potential for IA's to work on the tools that help drive the project.

But I'm not sure it's beneficial for most IA's to be touching drawings, just as it's not beneficial for most architect's to write code. I think this deserves more thought, but I do think that the differentiation between specialists [IA's] and generalists [A's] is a right and good thing. That's not to say that one is somehow better than the other, however. An architect is a generalist working in a sea of specialists, but she needs those good people who are actually doing the calculations. It's a reciprocal synthesis, not a hierarchal power struggle.

I think this is where the confusion in this post lies, however. An architect is a generalist, and I believe [I could be wrong] an info. architect is a specialist. So appropriating the name, even though the fundamental definition is actually opposite, seems like quite a leap in logic. Thoughts?

The kind of "blurring" that I see is from the fact that the software packages are becoming more specific to what we do, and for users to get the most of some of these tools, we need to be able to "hack" the software (and by this I do NOT mean piracy - more along the lines of external applications). So there is more and more overlap, which I am not so keen on calling it blurring. Even still, for software packages to more accurately reflect our profession, they have architects and engineers (of the built environment) as part of their software development team.

JP, from my limited knowledge, they are generalists that handle the coordination of multiple parties. Hence my interests in the more metaphorical links, instead of the literal ones. I'm saying that "real intellectual, professional and technological reciprocity" can be had through metaphors as well, not only literal means.

Fondue - I apologize, I didn't realize the point of the Pomme & Pomme de terre analogy was to be cute. I guess the God analogy was as well. To be clear, I didn't say that "history" is proactive, but I did say the protection of our titles (as architects) are a proactive measure. But again, thats not the topic of this discussion.

s - I do agree, 'blur' was the wrong word to use. And, upon further research and reflection, IA's are probably generalists as well. I think what led me to make the general/specific distinction was the breadth of differentiation in terms of the specific aspects dealt with. Architects deal with a wider range of constraints contexts, and ramifications. You're right, IA's are generalists as well, but the scope is more narrow. Make sense?



I would be interested in your ideas regarding how metaphorical, or even analogous, connections between the disciplines are more profitable [intellectually, emotionally, ecologically, economically etc.] than literal ones? Can you elucidate what are some of those metaphors?

Well, in a physical sense I see more metaphorical relevance to living beings with architecture - Skin/Envelope, Bone/Structure, Bloodveins,organs,etc/MEP, Intake of resources and resulting wastes, blah blah blah. Nothing new here.

I don't claim to be an expert at this or the best resource for such discussion... But with information architecture, I see more metaphorical relevance in the explicit consideration during the design process of the circulation, accessibility, security, user-friendliness, aesthetics, and etc. And in terms of what most information architects seem to be dealing with: process of big picture design for the purpose to serve the client and its users/occupants.

For example, in website design, thinking of different pages as different rooms rather than different floors or different buildings within a complex. Something as mundane as the different kinds of door hardware can be analogous to different levels of access/exit strategy, and fire rating of walls/doors/ceilings can imply the different levels of protection and prioritity within an emergency situation. Are you in a room with access to all doors, or are you in a sequence of rooms with only one door?

Conversely, what can we take from website design and software design into architecture other than literal use for them or active collaboration? Again, not exactly the authority on this topic... but how about the different levels of transparency in their organization at first glance? How about using more dynamic/interactive diagrams during the design process, rather than static ones? How about the ability to quantify usage? Can the development of web-based Operating Systems inspire different kinds of system for ownership and living? How about web-based "home pages" that respond to users, what can the physical architectural equivolent be?

I read a science fiction novel once, where the real physical world was in desolate ruins. But the web-based virtual environment was vibrant and liberated. Who says this is not happening in some parts of the world now? With the ability to work, communicate, and be entertained via a virtual interface, who says this priority of physical vs virtual hasn't already shifted for some people?

jplourde I'm much more interested in the pragmatic literal connections between A and IA, rather than analogy and or metaphor.


architecture itself without attempting to extra-connect, as virtual practice (drawing, modelling...) for the gestation of the tangible, is a complex net of figurative leaps. the building on screen is not the building. robin evans might as well have annotated a drawing of a building with "Ceci n'est pas un bâtiment".

i'm repeating myself now, but i see that a very fitting conclusion, hegelian i know, a very fitting future for present tendencies is with an augmenting of the body's biological technology to withstand climate. we remove architecture's primary reason of being, shelter...all the other 'reasons' topple over...no need for sheter, no need for architectural firmitas, utilitas or venustas. these would then describe only the corporeal.

only in such a case does IA, as the sof-enabling of the required hardware bionics, take over architecture (IA, like A, is a virtual practice...bio-electromechanical engineers step into the contractor's safety boots). i think indic mystics had it right all along, their maya came before the Maya program. its all in the correct mind-body.

at some point, architecture has to disappear into the body. all our technologies are getting smaller and more ethereal. why not architecture? and at a latter point, why not us and our corporeality? turn into streaming waves of incandescent virtualities.

fonz, I didnt mean to imply that there is not a place for internal teleologies. Or even that external teleologiesare a priori, across the board more important than internal. Rather, my point was that in this context actual constructs [ideas, means ,methods, etc.] that affect the profession in tangible, important ways are infinitely more interesting than ivory tower mumbo jumbo. In this context.

There's a real possibility here to engender progress both for the profession itself and for clients and constituencies. It pisses me off when people only want to cerebralize.

metaphor and analogy are not mumbo jumbo and fabricate actual constructs [ideas, means ,methods, etc.] that affect the profession in tangible, important ways

it is unfortunate that you cannot understand that because it places you then in your own mumbo jumbo psuedo-pragmatic veritably dogmatic ivory tower.

Resurrecting an old (but awesome) thread, I thought that those of you who contributed to the discussion back in october last year might be interested in two things:

1) Richard Saul Wurman will be a keynote speaker at this year's Information Architecture summit in Phoenix.

http://2010.iasummit.org/pages/30245#Richard-Saul-Wurman

Any PHX-area architects interested in crashing the party should contact me

2) The IA Institute is currently sponsoring a contest to explain information architecture. Here's my entry:

http://vimeo.com/8866160



Best wishes,

Dan K.