Processes of Negotiation in Web Information Architecture

Canberra,
The next session at ANZCA 2010 starts with Sally Burford, whose focus is on Web information architecture - the process and outcome of defining the online information environment so it enables people to find the information they seek. This is informed by prior practices of information organisation (in libraries and archives, for example), but certainly still has a long way to go - while there is a good theoretical basis for such Web information architecture now, it is not yet being applied consistently in practice so far.

Key theory (by Rosenfeld and Morville) follows a research > strategy > design > implementaton > administration flow chart for the design and development of Websites - so if there is a known best-practice way of doing it, how well does this flow serve actual practice situated in real development environments? Sally's project examined practices in seven large organisations - with information-rich Websites (focussed on informing rather than selling) that were public-facing (rather than internally focussed) - and studied these through interviews and focus groups as well as examining implementation documentation.

Generally, this study found that Web information architecture is a much deeper interaction than the traditional 'consultation' by the information professional. It originated from many actors in the process, outside the control of the information professional, and much debate, conflict and loss of power was evident. Notable findings pointed to the need to meet in the middle, combining client and designer expertise; the use of a cajoling and winning consent (or 'velvet glove') approach to persuading all stakeholders to a particular course of action; the frequent occurrence of tensions between different stakeholders - sometimes long-lasting; prevalent processes of competition over specific information architecture choices, especially where they relate to the homepage; the need to respond rapidly (and if necessary through ad hoc solutions) to design challenges and adjust to organisational changes that require corresponding changes in the information architecture; the frequent necessity to compromise on information architecture principles in order to accommodate the requirements handed down from powerful project stakeholders; the need to find a common language which avoids Web information architecture jargon and translates client wishes to actionable changes; and the complicated relationship between Web information architects and other affected divisions (e.g. marketing or public affairs divisions, or Web standard enforcement groups).

So, existing theories of structured methodologies for Web information architecture do not always appropriately serve real-life development situations, which can be far more complex and fraught and do not necessarily follow a clean flowchart pattern. Rather, the multiple perspectives of diverse stakeholders need to be considered, and Web information architecture should be considered to be a participatory practice.

Technorati : ANZCA 2010, Web information architecture, Websites, design, development, negotiation
Del.icio.us : ANZCA 2010, Web information architecture, Websites, design, development, negotiation