The phrase information architecture (although it is, I suppose, what I do) always conjures up an image of information architecture as building materials that need to be assembled properly in order to function.
Perhaps this is a good analogy — and perhaps it’s not. In some sense, information is a bunch of building blocks we can assemble and tear down as we need to. But we can also recombine it many ways that we wouldn’t normally think of when it comes to bricks, wood and steel.
When we talk about information architecture, there’s often an argument either for user-level tagging (which is so often, and so unfortunately, called folksonomy) and a rigid, centrally-controlled hierarchy of terms (taxonomy).
The arguments on both sides hinge around how much control you should give end users over how their information is organized (since they’re usually the ones creating most of this stuff). Some would say that increased control by the end user is an inevitable reality, since a growing amount of content can’t all be sorted by a central authority.
These ideas about participation and distributed content architecture are best exemplified with some examples. The examples below come from O’Reilly’s 2005 description of what Web 2.0 actually is.
In the examples above however, we see a transition happening from one thing to another — yet in reality, the items in the second column do not really supplant those in the first column. And in some cases, as O’Reilly points out, things like Napster and BitTorrent are not strictly web applications.
While these independent web applications are in a sense the building blocks of Web 2.0, it’s not really about building materials themselves. Of course, it’s important to start with good building materials — but it’s the combinations of those materials that are really the important thing.
We still rely on many different technologies that have difficulty communicating with one another (although common standards like XML help) — but ultimately, Web 2.0 has to be about making the web make sense. Don’t just give me more places to go — give me a map of the places that already exist first.
Like this post? Subscribe now to the full RSS feed.
July 31st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
O’Reilly does a great job of summarizing some of the “Core Competencies of Web 2.0 Companiesâ€. He includes “trusting users as co-developers†as one of the competencies of a true Web 2.0 company.
I believe the same can be said for building an information architecture and taxonomy. Having spent the better portion of my lifetime as a cataloguer, and now someone who is obsessed with social bookmarking on del.icio.us, I appreciate the value of structured content, while at the same time allowing users to “add value†to that content. For me, it’s not an “either / or†decision, but a meshing of both worlds – building a formal (yet “organicâ€) taxonomy, while at the same time allowing user-generated tagging to augment and add value to that existing infrastructure.
I agree with you – O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 examples don’t supplant those in the first column. They are just some of the tools we can use to “make the web make senseâ€. (So, yes, we definitely need partipatory information architecture
August 1st, 2007 at 11:14 am
I think this is a very important point Angela. Too often I think the assumption is that we can abandon structuring data and rely solely on user-generated organization of content. While this works for many systems, it doesn’t work for all systems. Cataloguing is a great example — while users’/library patrons’ input is very useful in determining what others might want to read, there still needs to be a set of rules that books are organized within.
I agree with you that we essentially need to be doing more of both — structuring content as well as users to add value and organize as they please.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
We are planning to allow various site admins to develop their own taxonomy. We only provide them with general guidelines and we have the control over the central repository of our KM system.
August 4th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Naguib — I think this is the right approach. In my experience, content owners usually know their content better than any taxonomist or vocabulary manager ever could, and putting the control in the hands of the owner makes the most sense. It takes a bit of faith to relinquish some of that central control, but I think it’s worth it in the end. Thanks for your comment.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Enough about web 2.0… when do we move to web 3.0 or do we first go to web 2.2.1 ?
The whole idea of web 2.0 and web 1.0 is stupid in my opinion.