A friend of mine just finished being a ‘user’ for a testing company. They were doing final usability testing before launching a redesign of a well known online share trading website.
They’d asked him in because he’s been using this website every day for a few years now. It was the only reason he was interested in the internet. He struggles doing a search on Google, but he’s a power user of this site.
At the end of the user testing he emerged frustrated and a little angry.
He hated the new design, but because he’s so experienced with the tasks that he was asked to perform, he would have tested quite well.
When it came to the questionnaire, he said that he didn’t really tell them what he thought because he didn’t want them to think he was being ‘smart’.
‘I gave them the benefit of the doubt that they knew what they were doing and that they were making good decisions’.
So, last night I was thinking…
… it’s just as important to be able to come up with a solid IA strategy as it is to be able to sell in that strategy. To explain to your stakeholders why your approach is the right one, and why they should approve it.
So, what if you’re really quite good at this ‘sales’ process. Rationalising the approach that you’ve taken and being able to describe that in terms that are aligned with the overall project strategy.
You sound confident and authorative and you use words that your client may not understand (but probably won’t tell you because they don’t want to look dumb).
What if you’re just really good at selling bad ideas?
Well… its possible, isn’t it?
Technorati Tags: information, architecture
Today’s links are brought to us by the great user centred activity and tool: Personas.
I’ve always thought they that should technically be called personae, but no one else seems to think so. Anyways…
Is it just me or do lots of people confuse what Information Architecture is and how it relates to other disciplines in web and application design? In particular, how it relates to Interaction Design.
I found the misunderstanding so common that I was starting to wonder if it was me with the problem?! Had I simplified it too much?
Happily, today I happened upon someone far more authoratative than myself who has set down the following definition (which, thankfully, I wholeheartedly agree with).
IA means defining information structures to answer the question “how does a user find the information they want?” Thus navigation links for a big corporate Web site reflect IA: where can I find directions to the company’s main headquarters? When you talk about content, page hierarchy, and taxonomy, you probably have an IA problem.
On the other hand, IxD means defining system behaviors to answer the question “how does a user take the action they want?” Thus the pulldowns, buttons, and checkboxes in a Web email application reflect IxD: what must I do to reply to the sender of this email? When you talk about action, controls, and dynamic elements, you probably have in IxD problem. Some problems include both components: consider how Amazon includes both large amounts of static content and some very complex dynamic behaviors.
(thank you Jonathan Korman)
How’s that work for you?
I’ll be using it elsewhere, I can tell you that now.
Technorati Tags: information+architecture, interaction+design, definitions