When Wurman crafted the term "information architecture" he described the action that characterized those who might use the label: "information architects make the complex clear."

Perhaps history will show a field of information architecture rose from needs beyond this. But it's this call to action that prompted my shift away from more established labels such as technical writer. And it's this focus on clarity that keeps me using the IA label.

The call to action starts with our awareness that "writing" instruction typically sucks. Seldom does writing focus on the performance structures necessary for a knowledge economy.

And once again education leaders are wondering if something is wrong. Here's info on a new study released last week: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/26/education/26WRIT.html

Yes, Beth, we can help lead the charge for ID as director! :-)

Seriously though, I do agree with some of the other particpators and the general notion that where precisely that director role should be "attributed" is and remains contentious. Going back to one of my earlier points, the best thing we could do is come together, agree on *something*, and benefit from our shared focus and momentum. Peter Bogaards suggested that, like the unclear definition of democracy, we may well "debate" the definition of these terms for a long time with no resolution. I hope his tempered realism proves incorrect!

In order to answer your question RE: Nathan, I went back and read "A Unified Field Theory of Design" based on your mentioning it. I actually hadn't read it in a good six months. What I find continually surprising about it is how far ahead it was (almost 10 years old now). While some of the terms have changed, today it is similarly relevant. Really visionary. In fact, re-reading it, I find it almost eerie - in a testament to the role Nathan's scholarship has played in my own approach and viewpoint - how similar things that I have written are to what I previously have read from Nathan.

In any event, it appears that, at least in 1994, Nathan was using "Information Design" in approximately the way the term "Information Architecture" works today. In boldface, he stresses that, "Information Design does not replace graphic design and other visual disciplines, but is the structure through which these capabilities are expressed." While on the surface that *might* seem to position ID in more of the "director" way that we have tossed about, the supporting copy and subsequent definition of Interaction Design seem to suggest otherwise. The third piece of that paper (but not included in the title disciplines) is Sensorial Design. By today's nomenclature, admittedly through my particular lens of assessing this, "his" role of Information Design in the production process is today's IA, while the Interaction Design and Sensorial Design pieces are essentially today's Experience Design. In fact, his liberal use of Experience really foreshadows where he took ED in his more recent work.

My copy of "experience design 1" is on my desk at the office, so it is certainly possible Nathan's own writings on these topics would clarify and correct my appraisal and interpretation.

One of the key differences between IA and ID - going back to the earlier topic - is how and why they evolved. ID's growth and establishment happened relatively slowly, and I would forward the greatest strongholds for ID are in academia, not business. It still suffers from an identity crisis; consider, for example, Bob Jacobsen's book on ID which, while full of great content, jumps around a fair amount without necessarily bottling the answer. IIID provides wonderful tools and intelligence but is out of the mainstream of practicing thought leaders in the U.S., in particular. By contrast, IA evolved rapidly, organically, and through business application. While the IA community is still beating the term about - and there is not anything wrong with that - those outside of the community (who are aware of it, anyway) have a pretty clear understanding of what it is and why. The core scholarship - most iconically the "Polar Bear book" - is *very* tight, specific and focused in how it sets the boundaries and guides actual tactics and production.

Aside from the "marketing edge" that ID has - and I'm surprised there was not feedback on that contention - the relative difference in evolution and brand (for lack of a better way to convey it) between the two makes ID a better candidate to be the "paradigm term" than IA.

In fact, I would be interested to hear from other people who are trying to sell corporate C-levels on bringing an "information approach" to the enterprise level, which is to say completely changing how and why their business and processes manifest, as opposed to the tactical level of selling websites, information systems, etc. And, for those who *are* taking the more meta approach, what are you calling what you are selling?

And as a final question, when are we going to do away with the term "user" to refer to a human being who participates with the things we create? Other than our being accustomed to and thus comfortable with the term, why does it persist, particular given the interactive nature of today's interfaces and experiences?

I dislike both the term Information Design and Information Architecture.

My opinion is expressed quite well by Jeff Raskin here:

http://humane.sourceforge.net/published/no_info_design.html

There is a quote near the top of this thread: "information architects make the complex clear". I think this tread is a great example of "Making the simple confusing."