A Traitor in Our Midst
Okay, I was just thinking about this a bit more while I was in the bathroom and I am going to cop to it. My first introduction to Information Architecture was in the mid 90s, when the internet was just becoming a viable industry. I worked at a large consulting firm and, although I was hired to be a graphic designer, the particular group that I worked with did mostly IT schematics - mapping out networks, networking solutions, telephony, etc. A co-worker, who was a consultant and is a good friend of mine to this day, wasn't happy with the way I was mapping out his work and came by my desk one day, dropped a stack of books from our in-house library and said "Just something for you to think about" and walked away.
The books were the three, now famous, Tufte books and Information Architects by Richard Saul Wurman. Yes, that stuff seems like old hat now but in 97 and to someone that was only half a designer at best, it seemed pretty radical. I obsessively started to apply the principals of Tufte and Wurman's Access guides to all of my work, taking twice as long on many projects than I should have. Chris (the helpful co-worker that brought me the books in the first place) and I would get into long discussions and arguements about what makes the graphic display of information interesting and easy to understand vs. what makes it "nice" to look at. It was a pretty awesome experience considering that the work I was doing would have been, in theory, the most boring for a graphic designer but ended up being some of my best and what I was most proud of.
So proud, in fact, that I brought a portfolio to my next job interview, when in reality it was completely unnecessary and the woman interviewing me (who became my boss for 7 years) couldn't care less about network diagrams and information architecture if you paid her to. I must have looked a bit stupid because not only did the work not correlate but looked completely boring in comparision to what I was interviewing for. I must have done something right though, because I got the job. Maybe it was the fact that I could have enthusiasm for something that SEEMED so boring. So I took the design job and moved away from all things IA, or so I thought.
Over the course of a few years, I was promoted several times and inherited the design and programming a large and unruly Job Tracking system. I would do beta releases, I would test it on employees for usability and never once did a see a correlation between this and information architecture. To me, this was something completely different. Yes, I wanted to make the application as user friendly as possible but this wasn't about color placement, line choices and clear symbols. It was something completely different and while I may have subconciously applied some of the things I had learned at my previous job, I really saw it as something very different.
To me, usability is not the same as the "visual display of quantative information", what made my database easy to use (or not easy, in some cases) was not the same as what made my diagrams and maps easy to read. Though I am the first to admit there is crossover, to me, usability, whether it is web based or otherwise seems like a completely different animal. So the point of all of this, right or wrong (and there is an entire army of information architects who would be willing to tell me that I am indeed WRONG), is that I just don't feel comfortable with applying the term Information Architect to web design. User Experience Design, sure, Usability, okay, but to me, Information Architecture will always be about graphs, charts and diagrams. I know I would feel different if I had "grown up" in it for the last 8 years but I didn't. So I have a point of view from 97 and I have my work now and I just don't feel that they are the same thing. It is my own bias, I know, but I don't know if I can ever get past it.