Search is the enemy of IA
by Pete Bell
Pete Bell
The Information Architecture Institute is running an Explain IA contest, and two of the entries really got me thinking. (Disclosure: Endeca is a sponsor of the contest, but we have no influence on the outcome — all voting is done by the 1400 institute members. And this is just a blog, for pete’s sake.) The contest has a worthy mission because frankly, as valuable as IA is, not nearly enough people outside the field understand it as well as they should.
The first is a crisp video entry by Dan Klyn that cleverly distills IA to three components. The first two are ontology and taxonomy — you know about them already. But the third Dan calls “choreography.” He says, “The structures it creates foster specific types of movement and interaction, anticipating the way users and information want to flow, and making affordance for change over time.” Well put.
The second entry, from Clifton B and Marilyn Yu, looks at two different approaches to IA: Top-down and bottom up. With top-down IA, you know what your content will be in advance, as with a gallery, and then you create a structure for it (they compare this to ordering ice cream). In bottom-up, you know generally how your pages will be structured (since they must map to well-known user tasks), as in a social network, and then you fit in your content (they compare this to ordering a pizza).
Also helpful. But in the search world, we see a third need. I haven’t heard a name for it — let’s call it “shuffle the deck.” This happens when:
-The information architect can’t possibly anticipate in advance what content will appear on the page (as in a search results page)
-The user needs to understand a set of content (as in the collection of pages, documents, videos, etc. that constitutes his search result) as opposed to a single page of that content.
So what — isn’t that just called a search results page? No, we need to do better than that. That’s because search and IA are enemies. Information architects spend long hours choreographing how users will flow through the site. But instead, users jump right to the search box and all that planning is erased by the long list of results.
Fortunately, there are ways for information architects to gain editorial control over search results so they look like a hand-designed page. Yes, faceted search is an important step. But there’s a lot more you can do through conditional rules. Probabilistic IA.
Here’s an example — compare this same search for “dogs” at National Geographic vs. Time Magazine. At NatGeo, search is indeed the enemy of IA — it’s just a flood of results. But at Time, you get a nicely organized page. There are facets. But the results are also nicely chunked out into covers, photo essays, related searches, etc. And depending on the set of results that appears, other kinds of widgets can conditionally appear, all driven by search. Food Network is another great site where the search team and information architects can be friends.
Know of any others?
on January 25, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Permalink
Well, I think search is a subset of IA.
And, IA is a subset of search.
Because, we live in a multi-faceted world.
Of course, it’s best for users when ask, search, browse (and other modes of seeking across multiple channels and media) work well together…which, I believe, is your point
on January 25, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Permalink
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by pgusbell: Search is the enemy of IA http://bit.ly/4I8UVi...
on February 1, 2010 at 7:10 am
Permalink
[...] 2 Likes Search Facets » Search is the enemy of IA 2 Likes Doing a content audit or inventory / nForm / Blog 2 Likes [...]
on February 3, 2010 at 8:28 am
Permalink
This would be the difference between IA and user experience
on February 5, 2010 at 2:03 am
Permalink
Agreed there is a lot of ground to be gained in the interplay between IA and clever search. Have a look at this article http://www.remdel.nl/2008/07/has+site+search+lost+its+way.aspx
on February 16, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Permalink
[...] original post on this topic generated a lot of interest that made me want to unpack the question, “Is search the enemy of [...]
on May 4, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Permalink
[...] Bell recently opined that search is the enemy of information architecture. That’s too bad, because we’re really going to need great search if we’re to beat Wikipedia [...]
on May 13, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Permalink
Wowsa, I could not disagree more strongly. Search is a partner of IA. They can and should work together. While we were busy doing Visio diagrams of site structures that our customers did not see and wireframes of pages that our customers barely glance at, the propellerheads were off creating systems that our customers now use pervasively to find and navigate the sites that we design and build.
Search is a fully formed entity and one that our customers rely on heavily, not a subset, not an adjunct and not an enemy. As information architects, we can and should embrace our search brethren by learning more about how the technology works and design sites and structures that maximize its effectiveness. As a community, we should be more proactive in reaching out to those developing search technology to educate them on our areas of expertise. Most of all, we should never give up the effort to get a place at the table of how these systems are designed through IA champions like: Marti Hearst, Vanessa Fox and more.
I’m just sayin’
on June 24, 2010 at 9:51 am
Permalink
[...] Bell recently opined that search is the enemy of information architecture. That’s too bad, because we’re really going to need great search if we’re to beat [...]
on June 24, 2010 at 10:00 am
Permalink
[...] Bell recently opined that search is the enemy of information architecture. That’s too bad, because we’re really going to need great search if we’re to beat [...]
on June 24, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Permalink
[...] Bell recently opined that search is the enemy of information architecture. That’s too bad, because we’re really going to need great search if we’re to beat [...]