@pdxWebDr "I agree with LB's realization that this forum is a place in a sense. [...] the experience is entirely different than a place in any other sense."
Physical places we experience with all senses - sight, touch, sound, taste, smell
virtual places we experience with only 1 or 2 senses (typically sight and sometimes sound).
our understanding and memory of physical places has much wider (and stronger) breadth of sensory experience to draw upon and make associations with.
our understanding of virtual places has to draw upon the other sensory understanding of physical places in order to totally comprehend or remember.
They are both places, but virtual places are incomplete - slightly unsatisfying, IMO.
Information Architects must have demonstrated computing and organizational skills to coordinate and structure the effective and accurate flow of information in a project team, including with consultants. Information Architects must also be capable of being simultaneously engaged with the overall scope and nature of the project while managing the myriad details of its execution. This requires experienced conceptual and organizational skills with an emphasis on technical proficiency and attention to detail, and strong and clear organization and communication skills as well as experience with a wide range of 2D and 3D software applications.
by the way ... in some countries acquiring the title architect does not necessitate licensure ... i.e. france: once you've done your 4-5 years of architecture school you're an A rchitect ...
Also, toast what about down the road when the virtual world can (and already there are lesser examples of this) be experienced just as fully (in a sensing perspective) as a real world physical experience of space??
As someone very wise (beta) recently said to me, while I was struggling with water infiltration into a wall treatment, "all architecture, ALL, boil(s) down to this; how to manage nature's elements. if you can't keep out the water, then what have you got?"
while i don't disagree with this, i'm not sure it's the bar to which we should aspire (perhaps the bar to which all aor's should aspire). i think the vitruvian definition still lays claim to the most succinct statement of the parameters that define architecture: firmitas, utilitas, venustas or function, structure, and beauty.
the danger i find in this whole line of inquiry is that it is based upon metaphor. architecture has and always will be anti-metaphor. it is fundamentally about things in their concrete and physical form. while i tend to agree that perhaps our definition of space is changing through the advent of the internet, i'm not sure that necessarily changes the definition of architecture. thus while there may be things that can be learned from a metaphorical comparison, i believe a more fruitful study could be undertaken in a language that more directly addresses information within in its own discipline.
I don't know. I only engage with books on two physical levels (sight and touch) yet I have a clear sense of place as well as arresting notions of visuals, sounds, smells, etc.
If being in a room is a "stronger" experience because of the incorporation of the physical senses, is it necessarily a "better" one, too? While buildings may provide more external experience, websites may provide more internal.
In any case, I think the term "architecture" in the IA sense is basically limited to "someone who plans the structure". Architects plan the structure of a real-world object and IAs plan the schematics of an informational one.
The OP is looking for comparisons on that process, I believe.
How am i being an ass, nam? All I'm saying is that people who don't practice architecture shouldn't call themselves architects. I mean this conversation is INSANE!
i'll have time later tonight to make some specific replies to your questions and comments, but just wanted to interject that the example document i posted is just one example of one document from one gig. i ask that you try not to thin-slice the wide diversity of info architectures by looking at the example i posted as exemplifying the whole field and idea.
to help with the thickness of the slice, here's another 'document' from a real gig:
;-) kidding. I love both your posts here, and this especially deserves repeating:
I consider that "unbodied self" to be the primary audience in website design, as the "bodied self" is to real-world design.
Beautiful.
On your first post (which really helps me understand some terminology better, thank you for that) you mention A Pattern Language, and I think this is a wholly accurate analogy. This goes, for me, to the notion of design allowing an intuitive use of the product, be it a building, a website, or a belt. Those intuitions about how things work are hardwired into our physical bodies (muscle memory, reflex actions) and are also enculturated into our minds (most important person sits at the head of the table, etc.).
toasteroven brings up the good point that our mind has stored away sensory memories that we use to tell us what to expect when we encounter physical objects. Similarly, we've started figuring out from experience how to navigate the web: contact info is pretty much always linkable at the bottom of a page, etc. In other words, intuition is starting to kick in - or has it been designed in by IAs? Do we culturally agree that higher up = more powerful because architects designed us into believing so?
I haven't looked at your link yet, infoarchitect, and will do so later, but now I have to go do my taxes (which is relevant for this reason: my taxes will put me in a bad mood, so when I come back I'll be more likely to feel grumpy about the appropriation of the term architect than I do now, when I'm feeling generally mellow and happy. I posted here awhile ago that I'm pretty much over others using the word as long as they aren't justifying their use of it with lazy logic.).
jafid, my comment implies that if we can't get those things right, then the public, and frankly many architects, will bring the bulk of their criticism on those, like Gehry at MIT, that fail the most basic and critical function of all shelter, and that is architectures failure to, well, shelter. but i agree, that this is not the aspiration...
just a quick thought; how can we ever begin to contemplate or comprehend the "unbodied" self? i mean, my hand taps this keys, the signs are present here on this space, my hand will guide the mouse and the cursor will move to the submit button, and i will press the right button on the mouse and the submit button will depress.
Med, what i mean is that we all get your point the first time you made it.
Other's on this thread are trying to continue a discussion about larger issues that both IA and Big A architecture can provide views on..
If you will notice you aren't the only one on the thread who is aggrieved by the use of Architect outside the Profession of Architecture, but they are still able to have a discussion with info arch and others on this thread...
The only thing that really bothers me is this: "Information Architects" can use the word without a problem, when those on their way to becoming Architects can't use terms like "intern architect" or "architectural designer" depending on the state. It's the double-standard of the thing that gets my goat. It's actually a bit flattering that when another profession tries to think of a word to describe the people who do the big organizational tasks, that "Architect" is the best they can come up with.
@aicc I think that depends on how you're defining "information design".
IAs are generally not literally coding the website, but I doubt Architects often literally set the foundation or install the siding of the buildings they plan/design.
IAs are "website planners" much in the same way Architects are "building planners". Hence the title.
RE: the "unbodied self" feedback.. Firstly, it's a phrase I came up with on the spot to illustrate my point and not an industry term, so please don't go thinking it's an IA buzzword or anything.
Second, I think we can all agree life extends beyond physical interactions (clicking buttons, pressing keys). I'm not my fingertips.
You don't learn something new from reading a book because of the physical contact of light bouncing off the pages and hitting your eyes - there's stuff going on inside you. Call it whatever you want.
To pdxwebMD "I don't know. I only engage with books on two physical levels (sight and touch)"... Should we then change the term from author to words architect?
I agree with a far earlier post that an IA, because of thier role as providing an invisible backbone or structure for the web designers, should be called an Information Engineer rather than architect.
If architect loosely means one who to designs (whether cyberspace or real space) and "information" is the adjective of the term "architect" than an Information Architect is one who designs information. Correct? Similarly, a Museum Architect designs museums, a Kettle Chip Flavor Architect designs the flavor of the chip...etc
Information cannot be designed. It be taught, distributed, withheld or distorted. So should we call our school teachers "Information Architects?"
My rather cheeky question above points to one thing - titles are not just a description of what one does, but also a sign of a responsibility or function.
The title architect is awarded after a number of educational, professional and legal hurdles. It implies acheivement, but also responsibility, as evidenced in necessary things like PI Insurance, CPD, legal restrictions, codes of conduct etc.
The fact thay you might be able to describe what you do in similar terms to what you percieve an architect does is all well and good. But the levels of responsbility and repercussion you have is in no way comparable.
End of argument.
Oct 1, 09 4:59 pm ·
·
pdxWebDr, I'd rather hear your attempt at defining "synergistically planning and designing the information."
I'm not trying to imply that IAs [can] only plan information and cannot design information, but it's more up to IAs to demonstrate that they synergistically plan and design information in order to more fully be called architects.
Information can be designed, and indeed most often actually is designed. FoxNews is a perfect example. Indeed any news broadcast is an example. Even architectural history is designed (in a number of different ways).
an interesting point is the lack of coding that IA's do...
while Architects don't lay foundation, we do spec details to lay the foundation...it's not just the schematics of how things work but there's quite a bit of detail-oriented information that goes with the title.
If a building leaks, we may get sued for a bad spec on a detail somewhere...but from what I understand the IA is really more of a planner, who isn't responsible for the detail of how something is produced - and isn't going to be responsible if an error in the logic of coding prevents a function...
Info, I like your second link - it's all helping me to get the picture.
@nam Also, toast what about down the road when the virtual world can (and already there are lesser examples of this) be experienced just as fully (in a sensing perspective) as a real world physical experience of space??
interesting question - I think even if virtual worlds can eventually provide complete sensory experience, it is still completely prescribed and segregated - i.e. no opportunities for "happy accidents" in the traditional sense. even if real-world architects try to completely prescribe our experience of space, they cannot control everything that happens within them or how we choose to experience them.
i.e. will we experience in virtual worlds the wonderfulness of randomly bumping into someone on the street who happens to know your cousin and you remember them because they smell like peanut butter? or how about sub-consciously connecting to where your spouse is in your house just by kitchen sounds and smells? I say no.
personally - I'd rather randomly pull books off shelves in the library than have some "information architect" tell me exactly what they think I should be looking for and how I should be experiencing this information.
for example - those "bing" commercials really disturb me because they reinforce this attitude that we should never be allowed to go off on tangents or experience cognitive shifts (which are essential in learning and intellectual development). Yeah, "hot singles" wasn't what I was originally looking for, but it might end up leading to something else even more interesting.
Yes - our experiences can be shaped in the physical world... but I'm really worried that virtual worlds are just another progression in our aversion to being cognitively challenged.
on a side note - have you ever watched how a baby/toddler experiences and learns about the world? They put stuff in their mouths.
I personally remember the content of books by their different weight and size... I love the smell of new magazines because it means I'm going to probably see something I haven't seen before - I know what a new copy of "el croquis" smells like. my intake and association of this information contained within is shaped by where I picked it up (bookstore, box in the mail, from a friend), where I'm reading it (in the coffee shop? on the train?), how it feels in my hands, how it smells...
for some reason, I am drawn to archinect differently when I'm at home than I am when I'm at work...
how we intake/process information has everything to do with the physical world around us...
This is why I feel the two fields are complimentary... and This is why I think Information designers are intrigued with architecture because they understand that their field is incomplete without the physical environment.
'Virtual' as opposed to 'physical' experiences? Now' as opposed to historical references (i.e. cathedrals)? Hyperactivity as opposed to the tedious design/construction process? Bill Gates as opposed to Wright? Getting paid as opposed to slave internships? Aunt was a famous IA?
Is being passionate about IA the same as being passionate about 'regular' Architecture?
Certainly seems to be a practical choice - perhaps the smarter one at present - given this economy.
If they're going to lose their shit over ACTUAL architects using the title, people who don't practice architecture but call themselves "architects" in some kind of way shouldn't. And that is because they have nothing to do with the practice of architecture.
toast, this comment
"Yes - our experiences can be shaped in the physical world... but I'm really worried that virtual worlds are just another progression in our aversion to being cognitively challenged."
Totally agree.
Oct 2, 09 1:34 pm ·
·
Does that perhaps mean that architects have an aversion to being cognitively challenged by virtual worlds?
Christopher Alexander and (to a lesser extent) Stewart Brand have both been widely cited and appropriated by people who do web design and info architecture and software engineering. But so far when I've asked architects what the profession thinks of A and B, the response is almost always a smirk.
Is it accurate to characterize A and B as fringe or non-mainstream? And or are any of you surprised to hear that people like me are huge fans of people like A & B?
Is it accurate to characterize A and B as fringe or non-mainstream?
i think the problem is "a and b" are not fringe or non-mainstream. it's kinda like someone getting really excited about new urbanism. it's a little off-putting.
i think brand wrote one of the best books about architecture by a non-architect with 'how buildings learn'.
generally i'd say the negative reaction you might get to alexander would be the sense that what he's done - rather than posit design process or strategies - is prescribe solutions that aspire to some sort of universal applicability. architects, as you've probably noticed, like questions more than answers.
Definitely agree with SW & jaf-Alexander isn't fringe, he's just basic. He writes well and is good at inspiring a bit and evoking a sense of the result he's looking for, but doesn't really ask good questions or give people something lasting to ponder. He's easy to get excited about for a week, harder to actually address in a sustained practice.
A leader in the IA community just re-posted slides from her conference presentation "radical architects" and writes about 'views' in both kinds of architecture:
Per the conversation here about materials being "everything" in architecture, and further wonderings about space as a competing or alternate essential thing I like how ms. Wodtke thinks about space and the social web.
We're those photos of Jakob Nielsen in that slide show? I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
I still don't see how the two are related beyond a superficial level. You could say that music is the same, no? They all have structure, can be experienced, changed, is subjective, moving, etc.
I do think it is interesting looking at juxtaposing different fields and exploring similarities and asking questions, but you can do that with many different fields (photography, music, engineering, etc.).
Info A, why not just come up with another title - preferably one without borrowing from a licensed profession - like say "Infotect" or "Virtual Designer" for your career? I remember in the go-go 90's when everyone in San Francisco had a title like "Paradigm Shifter", "Worldcrafter", "Bytecruncher" or some such thing.
Or to put it another way, why borrow from another profession?
Putting the label "Architect" in your title will inevitably draw comparisons, and unlike Architects working in the built physical world, IT professionals have no requirement or legal obligation to "Protect the health, safety and welfare of the public." and need to go through a series of education, training and examinations to make sure we can adequately perform that task.
(for an entertaining - albeit lengthy - discussion on how well our profession is currently doing at this, merely search for NCARB or ARE on this site...)
If your work truly requires skill (and I am not doubting that good IT work most definitely does) why not take a title to own for your profession instead of always being the lesser brother to another profession out there?
I think Steven's summary of Alexander is right on. I remember when I first went to school, my stepfather gave me a copy of "A Pattern Language". I loved it; the vignettes were so compelling, and there were so many different observations to consider. Over time, the way Alexander seemed to want to write a prescription for good architecture (and his preference for pre-industrial simulacra) began to seem stifling and misguided.
Perhaps that's why Alexander is more appealing to IT: it's more formulaic, it lays out an ideal system to follow, with the flexibility to insert parts from a prescribed kit. It does certainly seem like those with IT background, including info architect in starting this thread, are looking for some sort of answers. Those of us with an architecture background seem to be more interested in raising questions. Both are valid, and necessary for our fields, which I think again points to differences between the two just beneath the surface. Not that there isn't some overlap, or that one only asks questions and one only provides answers, but I do think the point that one profession can be compared to many others if you're willing to be liberal about it is a good one.
FLM - right - we've discovered over the past 20-30 years or so that all "ideal systems" are flawed. That's why the modernists failed so miserably at urban planning - and why most (good) architects today are contextually reactive in their design approach.
On the fence I was once at a party, small get together of about 40 people, and I was introduced to this person. Later he told us he was something like a "systems architect" or some such nonsense in front of about 5 or 6 others (which impressed them of course) and went into what he did. Then somone asked me what I did and I told them I was an Architect.
That sure did drain a lot of the energy away from this guy and the few people around us. Especially when he asked what systems I worked on and responded with "Uh no, I mean I am a real architect." I didn't try to correct his job title or his misrepresentation of himself. I didn't have to. Everyone around knew.
by that token, when you go to heaven, if you do, and God tells you he's the architect of All there is and asks you what you did in your life, smirk and respond: I was the Architect. Everyone in heaven will then know who's the genuine Article.
now why would one want to "protect" a title? an information architect is not taking jobs away from the architect, only another architect is. LEAVE INFORMATION ARCHITECTS ALOOOOOOOOOOOOONE, THEY'RE ONLY HUMAAAAN. in fact, it should be kind of flattering to an architect to be an analogical rond-point.
We want to "protect" titles in general so that people do not falsely market themselves as licensed/registered professionals. The registration/licensing process is to protect the public, NOT our jobs.
Much of the frustration and annoyance is not necessarily directed at those that call themselves "information architects" but really the fact that it takes so much time, sacrifice to get to the level we can call ourselves architects. And yet others can call themselves architects without the proper training, testing, and LIABILITY/RESPONSIBILITY taken (not to imply that it doesn't take time and sacrifice to be an information architect, of course).
But this is old news. I'm over it. Personally, I'm OK with people using the "architect" title not within our field and as long as they're not representing themselves as being capable of Architects' work. I just think the "intern" title before we're licensed is inaccurate because in every other field, this represents someone that is in school and on a temporary basis - without benefits. This seems to justify exploitation. Oh, and the fact that a lot of products use the "architectural" as an adjective for their shitty products to make them sound better. Moving on to the topic at hand...
I have noticed a link between architects and "information architects." This began with my collaboration with someone in our corporate office that used to make "programs" that was used to share information between different software. With my architectural background, I was able to initiate new programs and communicate to him the user-interface, and the capabilities of such "programs." It was pretty successful, and an enlightening experience.
For me "architecture" in a general sense doesn't have to be about physical spaces or physical materials. To me its much more general and more about just... "being." A systematic quantification or creation of an entity. OK, that sounds.... stupid. But you get the idea.
And yet others can call themselves architects without the proper training, testing, and LIABILITY/RESPONSIBILITY taken (not to imply that it doesn't take time and sacrifice to be an information architect, of course).
an information architect is not call herself an architect. similarly, in french, a pomme de terre (potato) is not a pomme (apple)!
i don't really care whether someone qualifies as an architect if she can perform as one. there are many houses built up in the mountains where i'm from that were not designed or built by an 'architect' and yet they are sound structurally and acceptable culturally. case in point: vernacular architecture.
Fondue - "i don't really care whether someone qualifies as an architect if she can perform as one." But how would someone know they can perform as one? How would you recogize someone that can perform as one without a protected title? As for the "Pomme" and "Pomme de terre" analogy, cute, but not very applicable in this case. If you go to a supermarket and they sell apple, but label it as potatoes, people will know. And if you accidentally put an apple in the recipe instead of a potato, its not exactly the end of the world. If you meet someone on the street and they represent themselves as an "architect" (in this theoretical world where anyone can claim as such if they THINK they can perform the work regardless any qualification from a third perspective) how do you know that person can qualify/perform as one?
The architect title as protected by the state is a relatively new concept. Throughout history, people were labeled "the architect" AFTER they designed something. Masons, carpenters, artists/sculptors, surveyors, drafters, engineers, have designed something and were labeled as "architects" afterwards. Times have changed, and now its different. Its now more of a proactive title than a consequential one.
But again, this is not the topic at hand.
My point was, there are things to be learned from each other regardless of the title, and there can be contributions from both sides. Pretty much any profession can learn from another, especially one that is so broad, i.e. about our designed environment (virtual or real). Complaints about the title usage is more internal to our own profession, in my opinion.
Christina Wodtke has just published a new blog posting that expands on her previous entry on Radical Architects. This time she's talking about FLW and the Imperial Hotel and finding some lessons for and affinites with web design:
Information Architects Talking About Architects and Architecture
This is allsoftware programming work.... It has nothing to do with architecture.
Computer programming and architecture are two totally separate subjects that require two totally separate ways of thinking.
@pdxWebDr "I agree with LB's realization that this forum is a place in a sense. [...] the experience is entirely different than a place in any other sense."
Physical places we experience with all senses - sight, touch, sound, taste, smell
virtual places we experience with only 1 or 2 senses (typically sight and sometimes sound).
our understanding and memory of physical places has much wider (and stronger) breadth of sensory experience to draw upon and make associations with.
our understanding of virtual places has to draw upon the other sensory understanding of physical places in order to totally comprehend or remember.
They are both places, but virtual places are incomplete - slightly unsatisfying, IMO.
Information Architect
apply online
Experience Required: 5-10+ Years
Information Architects must have demonstrated computing and organizational skills to coordinate and structure the effective and accurate flow of information in a project team, including with consultants. Information Architects must also be capable of being simultaneously engaged with the overall scope and nature of the project while managing the myriad details of its execution. This requires experienced conceptual and organizational skills with an emphasis on technical proficiency and attention to detail, and strong and clear organization and communication skills as well as experience with a wide range of 2D and 3D software applications.
By using this site you are agreeing to the conditions set forth in the Legal Notices. :: Legal Notices :: Privacy Policy
© 2008 Gehry Partners, LLP.
by the way ... in some countries acquiring the title architect does not necessitate licensure ... i.e. france: once you've done your 4-5 years of architecture school you're an A rchitect ...
med, quit being an ass.
bollocks interesting i didn't know...
Also, toast what about down the road when the virtual world can (and already there are lesser examples of this) be experienced just as fully (in a sensing perspective) as a real world physical experience of space??
while i don't disagree with this, i'm not sure it's the bar to which we should aspire (perhaps the bar to which all aor's should aspire). i think the vitruvian definition still lays claim to the most succinct statement of the parameters that define architecture: firmitas, utilitas, venustas or function, structure, and beauty.
the danger i find in this whole line of inquiry is that it is based upon metaphor. architecture has and always will be anti-metaphor. it is fundamentally about things in their concrete and physical form. while i tend to agree that perhaps our definition of space is changing through the advent of the internet, i'm not sure that necessarily changes the definition of architecture. thus while there may be things that can be learned from a metaphorical comparison, i believe a more fruitful study could be undertaken in a language that more directly addresses information within in its own discipline.
@toasteroven
I don't know. I only engage with books on two physical levels (sight and touch) yet I have a clear sense of place as well as arresting notions of visuals, sounds, smells, etc.
If being in a room is a "stronger" experience because of the incorporation of the physical senses, is it necessarily a "better" one, too? While buildings may provide more external experience, websites may provide more internal.
In any case, I think the term "architecture" in the IA sense is basically limited to "someone who plans the structure". Architects plan the structure of a real-world object and IAs plan the schematics of an informational one.
The OP is looking for comparisons on that process, I believe.
How am i being an ass, nam? All I'm saying is that people who don't practice architecture shouldn't call themselves architects. I mean this conversation is INSANE!
i'll have time later tonight to make some specific replies to your questions and comments, but just wanted to interject that the example document i posted is just one example of one document from one gig. i ask that you try not to thin-slice the wide diversity of info architectures by looking at the example i posted as exemplifying the whole field and idea.
to help with the thickness of the slice, here's another 'document' from a real gig:
http://nowthatiseeit.com/deadendsearch.png
pdxWeb Dr - are you a REAL doctor?
;-) kidding. I love both your posts here, and this especially deserves repeating:
I consider that "unbodied self" to be the primary audience in website design, as the "bodied self" is to real-world design.
Beautiful.
On your first post (which really helps me understand some terminology better, thank you for that) you mention A Pattern Language, and I think this is a wholly accurate analogy. This goes, for me, to the notion of design allowing an intuitive use of the product, be it a building, a website, or a belt. Those intuitions about how things work are hardwired into our physical bodies (muscle memory, reflex actions) and are also enculturated into our minds (most important person sits at the head of the table, etc.).
toasteroven brings up the good point that our mind has stored away sensory memories that we use to tell us what to expect when we encounter physical objects. Similarly, we've started figuring out from experience how to navigate the web: contact info is pretty much always linkable at the bottom of a page, etc. In other words, intuition is starting to kick in - or has it been designed in by IAs? Do we culturally agree that higher up = more powerful because architects designed us into believing so?
I haven't looked at your link yet, infoarchitect, and will do so later, but now I have to go do my taxes (which is relevant for this reason: my taxes will put me in a bad mood, so when I come back I'll be more likely to feel grumpy about the appropriation of the term architect than I do now, when I'm feeling generally mellow and happy. I posted here awhile ago that I'm pretty much over others using the word as long as they aren't justifying their use of it with lazy logic.).
I love this discussion of safeguarding the term "architect", when we allow almost anyone else to do the work of an Architect.
The majority of the built environment is designed and built without an "Architect".
Maybe it is time to stop moaning about terms and see how we can protect the function of the profession.
Perhaps people who design online user experience actually have more to learn from infamous architects.
One question info architect: whats the level of your PI insurance?
jafid, my comment implies that if we can't get those things right, then the public, and frankly many architects, will bring the bulk of their criticism on those, like Gehry at MIT, that fail the most basic and critical function of all shelter, and that is architectures failure to, well, shelter. but i agree, that this is not the aspiration...
just a quick thought; how can we ever begin to contemplate or comprehend the "unbodied" self? i mean, my hand taps this keys, the signs are present here on this space, my hand will guide the mouse and the cursor will move to the submit button, and i will press the right button on the mouse and the submit button will depress.
diabase, nice.
Med, what i mean is that we all get your point the first time you made it.
Other's on this thread are trying to continue a discussion about larger issues that both IA and Big A architecture can provide views on..
If you will notice you aren't the only one on the thread who is aggrieved by the use of Architect outside the Profession of Architecture, but they are still able to have a discussion with info arch and others on this thread...
The only thing that really bothers me is this: "Information Architects" can use the word without a problem, when those on their way to becoming Architects can't use terms like "intern architect" or "architectural designer" depending on the state. It's the double-standard of the thing that gets my goat. It's actually a bit flattering that when another profession tries to think of a word to describe the people who do the big organizational tasks, that "Architect" is the best they can come up with.
Yes, the "unbodied self" isn't even an issue. The unarchitectured architecture is.
How much is the information planned, and how much of the information is designed?
Architects employ a synergistic mix of planning and designing when they do what they do.
Do information architects employ a synergistic mix of planning and designing when they do what they do?
anyone familiar with Bruce de Mesquita? i wonder how his techniques could begin to in[form] form?
@aicc I think that depends on how you're defining "information design".
IAs are generally not literally coding the website, but I doubt Architects often literally set the foundation or install the siding of the buildings they plan/design.
IAs are "website planners" much in the same way Architects are "building planners". Hence the title.
RE: the "unbodied self" feedback.. Firstly, it's a phrase I came up with on the spot to illustrate my point and not an industry term, so please don't go thinking it's an IA buzzword or anything.
Second, I think we can all agree life extends beyond physical interactions (clicking buttons, pressing keys). I'm not my fingertips.
You don't learn something new from reading a book because of the physical contact of light bouncing off the pages and hitting your eyes - there's stuff going on inside you. Call it whatever you want.
To pdxwebMD "I don't know. I only engage with books on two physical levels (sight and touch)"... Should we then change the term from author to words architect?
I agree with a far earlier post that an IA, because of thier role as providing an invisible backbone or structure for the web designers, should be called an Information Engineer rather than architect.
If architect loosely means one who to designs (whether cyberspace or real space) and "information" is the adjective of the term "architect" than an Information Architect is one who designs information. Correct? Similarly, a Museum Architect designs museums, a Kettle Chip Flavor Architect designs the flavor of the chip...etc
Information cannot be designed. It be taught, distributed, withheld or distorted. So should we call our school teachers "Information Architects?"
This is not all about semantics.
My rather cheeky question above points to one thing - titles are not just a description of what one does, but also a sign of a responsibility or function.
The title architect is awarded after a number of educational, professional and legal hurdles. It implies acheivement, but also responsibility, as evidenced in necessary things like PI Insurance, CPD, legal restrictions, codes of conduct etc.
The fact thay you might be able to describe what you do in similar terms to what you percieve an architect does is all well and good. But the levels of responsbility and repercussion you have is in no way comparable.
End of argument.
pdxWebDr, I'd rather hear your attempt at defining "synergistically planning and designing the information."
I'm not trying to imply that IAs [can] only plan information and cannot design information, but it's more up to IAs to demonstrate that they synergistically plan and design information in order to more fully be called architects.
Information can be designed, and indeed most often actually is designed. FoxNews is a perfect example. Indeed any news broadcast is an example. Even architectural history is designed (in a number of different ways).
pdx, (and others)
an interesting point is the lack of coding that IA's do...
while Architects don't lay foundation, we do spec details to lay the foundation...it's not just the schematics of how things work but there's quite a bit of detail-oriented information that goes with the title.
If a building leaks, we may get sued for a bad spec on a detail somewhere...but from what I understand the IA is really more of a planner, who isn't responsible for the detail of how something is produced - and isn't going to be responsible if an error in the logic of coding prevents a function...
Info, I like your second link - it's all helping me to get the picture.
isn't all information just data. And spatial experience then as well?
I get the desire to honor the work taken to get the title, though. Plus, the liability an responsibility.
As for designing information. I don't IA are designing the information but rather the experience of the information (or the flow of data??).
I would say any experience physical or virtual can be shaped.
Info, thanks for sharing..
@nam Also, toast what about down the road when the virtual world can (and already there are lesser examples of this) be experienced just as fully (in a sensing perspective) as a real world physical experience of space??
interesting question - I think even if virtual worlds can eventually provide complete sensory experience, it is still completely prescribed and segregated - i.e. no opportunities for "happy accidents" in the traditional sense. even if real-world architects try to completely prescribe our experience of space, they cannot control everything that happens within them or how we choose to experience them.
i.e. will we experience in virtual worlds the wonderfulness of randomly bumping into someone on the street who happens to know your cousin and you remember them because they smell like peanut butter? or how about sub-consciously connecting to where your spouse is in your house just by kitchen sounds and smells? I say no.
personally - I'd rather randomly pull books off shelves in the library than have some "information architect" tell me exactly what they think I should be looking for and how I should be experiencing this information.
for example - those "bing" commercials really disturb me because they reinforce this attitude that we should never be allowed to go off on tangents or experience cognitive shifts (which are essential in learning and intellectual development). Yeah, "hot singles" wasn't what I was originally looking for, but it might end up leading to something else even more interesting.
Yes - our experiences can be shaped in the physical world... but I'm really worried that virtual worlds are just another progression in our aversion to being cognitively challenged.
on a side note - have you ever watched how a baby/toddler experiences and learns about the world? They put stuff in their mouths.
I personally remember the content of books by their different weight and size... I love the smell of new magazines because it means I'm going to probably see something I haven't seen before - I know what a new copy of "el croquis" smells like. my intake and association of this information contained within is shaped by where I picked it up (bookstore, box in the mail, from a friend), where I'm reading it (in the coffee shop? on the train?), how it feels in my hands, how it smells...
for some reason, I am drawn to archinect differently when I'm at home than I am when I'm at work...
how we intake/process information has everything to do with the physical world around us...
This is why I feel the two fields are complimentary... and This is why I think Information designers are intrigued with architecture because they understand that their field is incomplete without the physical environment.
How does one aspire to become an IA?
'Virtual' as opposed to 'physical' experiences? Now' as opposed to historical references (i.e. cathedrals)? Hyperactivity as opposed to the tedious design/construction process? Bill Gates as opposed to Wright? Getting paid as opposed to slave internships? Aunt was a famous IA?
Is being passionate about IA the same as being passionate about 'regular' Architecture?
Certainly seems to be a practical choice - perhaps the smarter one at present - given this economy.
I agree with rationalist.
If they're going to lose their shit over ACTUAL architects using the title, people who don't practice architecture but call themselves "architects" in some kind of way shouldn't. And that is because they have nothing to do with the practice of architecture.
Sorry guys, but this is just the way it is.
toast, this comment
"Yes - our experiences can be shaped in the physical world... but I'm really worried that virtual worlds are just another progression in our aversion to being cognitively challenged."
Totally agree.
Does that perhaps mean that architects have an aversion to being cognitively challenged by virtual worlds?
Quick question for the architects: I saw that Christopher Alexander won the Vince Scully prize this year:
http://www.nbm.org/support-us/awards__honors/scully-prize/christopher-alexander.html
Christopher Alexander and (to a lesser extent) Stewart Brand have both been widely cited and appropriated by people who do web design and info architecture and software engineering. But so far when I've asked architects what the profession thinks of A and B, the response is almost always a smirk.
Is it accurate to characterize A and B as fringe or non-mainstream? And or are any of you surprised to hear that people like me are huge fans of people like A & B?
i think the problem is "a and b" are not fringe or non-mainstream. it's kinda like someone getting really excited about new urbanism. it's a little off-putting.
where's utopianism when you need it?
i think brand wrote one of the best books about architecture by a non-architect with 'how buildings learn'.
generally i'd say the negative reaction you might get to alexander would be the sense that what he's done - rather than posit design process or strategies - is prescribe solutions that aspire to some sort of universal applicability. architects, as you've probably noticed, like questions more than answers.
Definitely agree with SW & jaf-Alexander isn't fringe, he's just basic. He writes well and is good at inspiring a bit and evoking a sense of the result he's looking for, but doesn't really ask good questions or give people something lasting to ponder. He's easy to get excited about for a week, harder to actually address in a sustained practice.
A leader in the IA community just re-posted slides from her conference presentation "radical architects" and writes about 'views' in both kinds of architecture:
http://eleganthack.com
Per the conversation here about materials being "everything" in architecture, and further wonderings about space as a competing or alternate essential thing I like how ms. Wodtke thinks about space and the social web.
We're those photos of Jakob Nielsen in that slide show? I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
I still don't see how the two are related beyond a superficial level. You could say that music is the same, no? They all have structure, can be experienced, changed, is subjective, moving, etc.
I do think it is interesting looking at juxtaposing different fields and exploring similarities and asking questions, but you can do that with many different fields (photography, music, engineering, etc.).
Info A, why not just come up with another title - preferably one without borrowing from a licensed profession - like say "Infotect" or "Virtual Designer" for your career? I remember in the go-go 90's when everyone in San Francisco had a title like "Paradigm Shifter", "Worldcrafter", "Bytecruncher" or some such thing.
Or to put it another way, why borrow from another profession?
Putting the label "Architect" in your title will inevitably draw comparisons, and unlike Architects working in the built physical world, IT professionals have no requirement or legal obligation to "Protect the health, safety and welfare of the public." and need to go through a series of education, training and examinations to make sure we can adequately perform that task.
(for an entertaining - albeit lengthy - discussion on how well our profession is currently doing at this, merely search for NCARB or ARE on this site...)
If your work truly requires skill (and I am not doubting that good IT work most definitely does) why not take a title to own for your profession instead of always being the lesser brother to another profession out there?
saw antoine predock speak on friday. he said that his card reads 'value engineer'.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's hilarious, and crushing. But hilarious.
I think Steven's summary of Alexander is right on. I remember when I first went to school, my stepfather gave me a copy of "A Pattern Language". I loved it; the vignettes were so compelling, and there were so many different observations to consider. Over time, the way Alexander seemed to want to write a prescription for good architecture (and his preference for pre-industrial simulacra) began to seem stifling and misguided.
Perhaps that's why Alexander is more appealing to IT: it's more formulaic, it lays out an ideal system to follow, with the flexibility to insert parts from a prescribed kit. It does certainly seem like those with IT background, including info architect in starting this thread, are looking for some sort of answers. Those of us with an architecture background seem to be more interested in raising questions. Both are valid, and necessary for our fields, which I think again points to differences between the two just beneath the surface. Not that there isn't some overlap, or that one only asks questions and one only provides answers, but I do think the point that one profession can be compared to many others if you're willing to be liberal about it is a good one.
FLM - right - we've discovered over the past 20-30 years or so that all "ideal systems" are flawed. That's why the modernists failed so miserably at urban planning - and why most (good) architects today are contextually reactive in their design approach.
On the fence I was once at a party, small get together of about 40 people, and I was introduced to this person. Later he told us he was something like a "systems architect" or some such nonsense in front of about 5 or 6 others (which impressed them of course) and went into what he did. Then somone asked me what I did and I told them I was an Architect.
That sure did drain a lot of the energy away from this guy and the few people around us. Especially when he asked what systems I worked on and responded with "Uh no, I mean I am a real architect." I didn't try to correct his job title or his misrepresentation of himself. I didn't have to. Everyone around knew.
by that token, when you go to heaven, if you do, and God tells you he's the architect of All there is and asks you what you did in your life, smirk and respond: I was the Architect. Everyone in heaven will then know who's the genuine Article.
now why would one want to "protect" a title? an information architect is not taking jobs away from the architect, only another architect is. LEAVE INFORMATION ARCHITECTS ALOOOOOOOOOOOOONE, THEY'RE ONLY HUMAAAAN. in fact, it should be kind of flattering to an architect to be an analogical rond-point.
We want to "protect" titles in general so that people do not falsely market themselves as licensed/registered professionals. The registration/licensing process is to protect the public, NOT our jobs.
Much of the frustration and annoyance is not necessarily directed at those that call themselves "information architects" but really the fact that it takes so much time, sacrifice to get to the level we can call ourselves architects. And yet others can call themselves architects without the proper training, testing, and LIABILITY/RESPONSIBILITY taken (not to imply that it doesn't take time and sacrifice to be an information architect, of course).
But this is old news. I'm over it. Personally, I'm OK with people using the "architect" title not within our field and as long as they're not representing themselves as being capable of Architects' work. I just think the "intern" title before we're licensed is inaccurate because in every other field, this represents someone that is in school and on a temporary basis - without benefits. This seems to justify exploitation. Oh, and the fact that a lot of products use the "architectural" as an adjective for their shitty products to make them sound better. Moving on to the topic at hand...
I have noticed a link between architects and "information architects." This began with my collaboration with someone in our corporate office that used to make "programs" that was used to share information between different software. With my architectural background, I was able to initiate new programs and communicate to him the user-interface, and the capabilities of such "programs." It was pretty successful, and an enlightening experience.
For me "architecture" in a general sense doesn't have to be about physical spaces or physical materials. To me its much more general and more about just... "being." A systematic quantification or creation of an entity. OK, that sounds.... stupid. But you get the idea.
an information architect is not call herself an architect. similarly, in french, a pomme de terre (potato) is not a pomme (apple)!
i don't really care whether someone qualifies as an architect if she can perform as one. there are many houses built up in the mountains where i'm from that were not designed or built by an 'architect' and yet they are sound structurally and acceptable culturally. case in point: vernacular architecture.
Fondue - "i don't really care whether someone qualifies as an architect if she can perform as one." But how would someone know they can perform as one? How would you recogize someone that can perform as one without a protected title? As for the "Pomme" and "Pomme de terre" analogy, cute, but not very applicable in this case. If you go to a supermarket and they sell apple, but label it as potatoes, people will know. And if you accidentally put an apple in the recipe instead of a potato, its not exactly the end of the world. If you meet someone on the street and they represent themselves as an "architect" (in this theoretical world where anyone can claim as such if they THINK they can perform the work regardless any qualification from a third perspective) how do you know that person can qualify/perform as one?
The architect title as protected by the state is a relatively new concept. Throughout history, people were labeled "the architect" AFTER they designed something. Masons, carpenters, artists/sculptors, surveyors, drafters, engineers, have designed something and were labeled as "architects" afterwards. Times have changed, and now its different. Its now more of a proactive title than a consequential one.
But again, this is not the topic at hand.
My point was, there are things to be learned from each other regardless of the title, and there can be contributions from both sides. Pretty much any profession can learn from another, especially one that is so broad, i.e. about our designed environment (virtual or real). Complaints about the title usage is more internal to our own profession, in my opinion.
Christina Wodtke has just published a new blog posting that expands on her previous entry on Radical Architects. This time she's talking about FLW and the Imperial Hotel and finding some lessons for and affinites with web design:
http://www.eleganthack.com/?p=2768
fondue... doesn't "pomme du terre" actually mean "apple of the earth"?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.