Download
1 / 33
330 likes | 461 Views
IBE312 Information Architecture. Ch . 5 Organization Systems Ch . 6 Labeling Systems 2013. Ch 5 . Organization of Information. Probably as old as writing itself Many different approaches: Library and Information Science: thesauri, indexing, etc.
E N D
IBE312Information Architecture Ch. 5 Organization Systems Ch. 6 Labeling Systems 2013
Ch 5 Organization of Information • Probably as old as writing itself • Many different approaches: • Library and Information Science: thesauri, indexing, etc. • Computer Science: knowledge representations • Cognitive Science: how do humans grasp concepts? • Philosophy: epistemology (“the nature of knowledge”) • …
Organization Systems challenges • Challenges oforganizinginformation • Information growth • Ambiguity • Heterogeneity – unlike parts, levelsofgranulatiry. E.g. a websitecan present wholearticles or otherrecordsofinformation from a database. Multi-formats: text, sound clips, images, etc. • Difference in perspective- intendedaudience • Internalpolitics – influencelabeling and org. sys.
Ambiguity – languagecan be interpreted in manyways • The word pitch. When I say pitch, what do you hear? There are more than 15 definitions, including: • A throw, fling, or toss • A black, sticky substance used for waterproofing • The rising and falling of the bow and stern of a ship in a rough sea • A salesman’s persuasive line of talk • An element of sound determined by the frequency of vibration
Organizing Web Sites and Intranets • Organization systems consistoforganizationschemesand structures. • Organization is stronglyconnected to navigation, labeling and indexing. • Even so, workingwithorganizationseparately is useful, (possibly) making a fundament for navigation and labeling.
“Exact” Organization Schemes • Alphabetical • Chronological • Geographical • Organizational (for Intranets) • Any inherent attribute of entities
“Inexact” (Ambiguous) Organization Schemes • Ambiguous organization supports serendipitous mode of information seeking by grouping items in intellectually meaningful ways. • Much harder, but useful – we don’t always knowthe label, related items are grouped together…. • by Topic, Task (e.g. task and topic co-exist on ebay’s website), or Audience (e.g. Dell invites users to self-identify) • Metaphors (desktop, folders, files, trash can, are these) • Hybrids are common, but troublesome…
Hybrid scheme when you start blending elements of multiple schemes, confusion often follows, and solutions are rarely scalable The exception to these cautions against hybrid schemes exists within the surface layerofnavigation.
Organization structures • The stucturedefinestheprimarywayuserscannavigate. • Hierarchy – top-downapproach (taxonomy) • Tradeoffs – «narrow and deep» or «broad and shallow» • Database – bottom-up approach • Reallytheuseofmetadata, enabling (powerful) searching and browsing. • Rolodex – eachcard is a record (p.73); limited to searchingfor eachcard by last name. • Metadata is the primary key that links information architecture to the design of database schema. • By tagging documents and other information objects with controlled vocabulary metadata, we enable powerful searching, browsing, filtering, and dynamic linking. • Hypertext – not useful as a primarystructure
Database model The database model is useful when applied within relatively homogeneous subsitessuch as product catalogs and staff directories. However, enterprise controlled vocabularies can often provide a thin horizontal layer of structure across the full breadth of a site. Deeper vertical vocabularies can then be created for particular departments, subjects, or audiences. (p.75) • Information architects need to understand how metadata, controlled vocabularies, and database structures can be used to enable: • Automatic generation of alphabetical indexes (e.g., product index) • Dynamic presentation of associative “see also” links • Fieldedsearching • Advanced filtering and sorting of search results
Hierarchical Organization • Systems of organization are mostly hierarchical • Represents a specific mode of thinking: reductionistic, decompositional, general-to-specific • Why? • “Natural order” • Convention and familiarity • Physical limitations • Cognitive limitations • Hierarchies are everywhere: • Human organizations • Computer file systems • Physical file systems • Biological organisms Designing taxonomies When designing taxonomies on the Web, you should remember.. be aware of, but not bound by, the idea that hierarchical categories should be mutually exclusive. Within a single organization scheme, you will need to balance the tension between exclusivity and inclusivity. E.g. tomatoes – fruit or berry? List as both…but not too many exceptions.
Depth vs. Breadth “shallow but wide” What are the tradeoffs? “narrow but deep” • If a hierarchy is too broad and shallow, users are faced with too many options on the main menu and are unpleasantly surprised by the lack of content once they select an option. • If a hierarchy is too narrow and deep, users have to click through an inordinate number of levels to find what they arelooking for. User Testing Needed
Non-Hierarchical Systems • Hypertext • Direct links between different information segments • Pre-dates the Web • Social tagging • “Wisdom of the mob” • Shows what everyone else likes • Web 2.0 (hype?)
Hypertext Links have personal associations. They do not have same meaning to everyone. Not a primary organization structure. Balmoral Charles Elizabeth Diana Elizabeth Tony Philip
Social Tagging del.icio.us flickr del.icio.us YouTube
Top-down vs bottom-up structures Free tagging, also known as collaborative categorization, mob indexing, and ethnoclassification, is a simple yet powerful tool. Users tag objects with one or more keywords. The tags are public and serve as pivots for social navigation. (p.77) Folksonomy – user defined tags to organize information. (bottom up classification) • Doesn’t a hierarchical organization system defeat the entire point of hypertext? • Doesn’t social tagging eliminate the need for organization systems?
on Tagging… • in a debate with Lou Rosenfeld, Clay Shirkyargued: “The advantage of folksonomies isn’t that they’re better than controlled vocabularies, it’s that they’re better than nothing, because controlled vocabularies are not extensible to the majority of cases where tagging is needed...This is something the ‘well-designed metadata’ crowd has never understood...the cost of tagging large systems rigorously is crippling, so fantasies of using controlled metadata in environments like Flickr are really fantasies of users suddenly deciding to become disciples of information architecture.”† (p.79) • † From the blog posting “folksonomies + controlled vocabularies” (http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/01/07/folksonomies_controlled_vocabularies.php). • Tagging is demonstrated in flickr and del.icio.us
Organizational Structures Top-level, umbrella structure, likely to be hierarchical Less-structured content - users contribute to organization and access content through.. • Bookmarks • Arrangement of tabs and windows • Social tagging • Personal homepage • Blogs
Ch 6 Labeling Systems • Labeling is a form of representation. • Some (random) problems with labels: • They aren’t representative and don’t differentiate • Theyaren’tuser-centric • Theywastemoney • They don’t give a good impression • Labels do matter!
Labeling System • Direct manifestations of possible user actions • Mutually constrained by: • Organization system • Navigation system • Page layout and design • Warning: poor labels can ruin a good organization and navigation system!
Language of Labels • Different types of phrases: • Nouns (“Flight reservations”) • Verb phrases (“Book a flight”) • Gerunds (“Giving to Maryland”) • Prepositional phrases (“For applicants”) • Questions (“How do I sign up?”) • Idiomatic (“What’s new?”, “Guestbook”, “Shopping cart”) • Icons • Natural affinity between label types and organization systems
VarietiesofLabels • Labels as • Contextual links – very easily misused (click here) • Headings – often depending on hierarchy • Navigation system choices – should adhere to some“standards” • Index terms • Iconiclabels – anygood?
Designing Labels • Narrowscopewheneverpossible • Develop consistent labeling systems, not labels. Consistencyis affected by: • Style • Presentation • Syntax • Granularity • Comprehensiveness • Audience
Source ofLabeling Systems • Your own site – use the existing labels as a startingpoint • Comparableand competitivesites • Controlledvocabularies and thesauri
Creating New Labeling Systems • Content analysis • Content authors • Advanced users and subject matter experts • Users (Open or closed card sort is very common.)
