95% of information architects are fakes

On 12:36:39 5 May 2008 IA-PRO wrote:

 

Why are digital agencies so easily conned into believing that because someone calls themselves an information architect, that they are one?

It obvious when listening to some they lack the rudiments and do not understand how to build a taxonomy. They cannot analyse complex information systems or understand content and its container structures.

In digital projects they do not fully understand usability or accessibility which informs the design process. Context and audience research seem unknown, yet wireframes are created (which anyone can do) that lack any understanding of interaction design.

Who are these fakes?

The most common ones are;

Business analysts, who do not have a computer science background.
Developers, who do not have a human computer interaction background.
Graphic / user interface designers, who do not understand usability and basic logical internet or software structures.
Project managers, who define success by meeting the business case (unfortunately if the business clients knew how improve their digital business they would not be using a consultancy) and forget the user case.

What does it matter?

Large sums of money are being invested by companies in digital communications and marketing on the basis that digital agencies can deliver ROI. If the underlying structures of redesign and new systems are incorrect, they can never deliver their true potential.

How can you spot a real information architect?

Hang around the other type for a while or simply ask how they got into information architecture, who are their influences (real people not idiot guides), where they draw their processes from and other areas they are involved in.

Try not to be so credulous, watch out for really, really clever people remember they should be able to understand and reinterpret huge complex data and interaction systems.