I agree with “Testing vs Research” and I love your explain about usability testing is not UAT.
Well done.

I don’t think I share your definition of IA, but even if I did, the intentionally narrow definition I outlined in the presentation was simply to provide contrast against a holistic view of UX. In this regard the distinction I made between IA and UX was artificial, and whilst I get the point you and Eric are making, my point was that the total experience is what we should be focussing on, not any one particular interface (or its design).

I would have phrased it “we should prioritise UX over interface design” but since it was an IA conference it seemed more topical to say “UX over IA” :)

I agree with you that the user is but “one inhabitant of this information space” and that UX is about achieving a balance between user needs, business objectives, content requirements, technical possibilities, creative desire etc. I make a major point of this whenever I talk about UX or run workshops on the topic. But looking at the slides for this presentation, yours is a fair point since I focussed almost entirely on the user side of things.

cheers

Pat

UX over IA? To me it’s vice versa :) …

To me (and this is probably a very personal attitude) Information Architecture describes the information space in which all those different actions and interactions can take place.

Experience Design (not only UX), Findability, Usability, Desirability or Whatever-bility are all attributes of this virtual information space. Like Eric said, “UX is the end”. This is one example of such an attribute (the end) of, let’s say, an abstract object which can have an end – like a road or a way for example. But like every road is seeded in space, it is this information space itself I have in mind when I think of Information Architecture.

I absolutely agree with what you say: “take quite a low level definition of IA—then you’re leaving out quite a bit”.

“Crucially you must understand who your audience is and what they need, want and do”
True. This is the UX part within IA. But where there is an audinece, there must be also a “speaker”. It’s the old sender-message-receiver model.

What about the Client, the business, his business or his goals? What about technical restraints, knowledge silos, formats, languages, relationships, rights… (hope somebody reading this will help me find better examples :) ?

The user is just one inhabitant of this information space and it is crucial to look at him closer. But from the IA point of view UCD is not the only thing one should do and the user ist not the only one who can experience something.

To me User Experience is an important property of a wider object called Information Architecture whose main function is communication.

My execution was obviously a little off since what I wanted to be saying is what you have just said above with regard to the distinction between IA and UX. I think a bit of “UX as a thing” crept in there…bad habit.

I’m going to add your points to my own list of “I really should have done it like this” notes and revise my presentation for next time.

cheers

Pat

For example, I love your slide number 9, which is clear. But your slide 25 lists activities that should be part of any decent discovery period (for content strategy, IA, etc.). This doesn’t necessarily move us beyond IA, but simply leads to better user experience (a state of mind).

In short, why should your toolbox pick a fight with your wrench?