| 
 
              
                | Enterprise Information Architecture:Strategies
                    for the Real World
(interactions
                      magazine November/December 2003)  |  
  Lou Rosenfeld was recently in London presenting his one-day
                seminar on Enterprise Information Architecture. I have been doing
                a lot of work with intranets lately so thought it would be useful
                to attend.  No one dealing with web site development in a large organization
                would have any trouble identifying with some of the issues Lou
                raised: 
              
                     competing demands from many quarters; tension between centralized and distributed web solutions; information organized by business function, leading
                      to content “silos”; user confusion.  Against this raft of problems, Enterprise Information Architecture
                offers several sets of strategies: 
              
                     top-down; bottom-up; enterprise search.  Not surprisingly, top-down strategies are mostly to do with
                the taxonomy of a site, transforming it from organization-oriented
                to user-oriented. This is not going to happen overnight, so a
                number of different short-term strategies are suggested:  
              
                     superficial changes to the taxonomy to make it more topic
                      or product oriented; transforming site maps from “org chart” to
                      topical; specialized site index; guides and topic pages.  Mostly these are attempts to make a site appear to address
                real users’ needs while trying to disguise the Medusa-like
                structure underneath. For many sites, especially those with products
                or services to sell, these will be good short-term solutions.
                However, there are some usability issues that should be aired.
                Site maps and indices will possibly give more political mileage
                within the organization than any real improvement in usability.
                Jakob Nielsen discussed site maps in an Alertbox in January 2002
                (link below). At that time, only about a quarter of the users
                in his study tried to use a site map when stuck (and all of the
                sites selected for testing had one). When looking at the web
                as a whole, only about half of sites had a site map and when
                asked to name a site that did, users were correct just under
                half the time.  I have conducted a more recent study of my own to see what
                changes there have been in the intervening two years. Of six
                randomly-selected sites (Dell, Cisco, Ford, GM, HP and IBM),
                only half had site maps – not much change there, then.
                So while it may be a good idea to persuade a department to move
                their yawn-inducing material from the home page to a prominent
                place in the site map, chances are that users will never see
                it – which may be fine as long as the department concerned
                never finds out.  Specialized site indices and guides may fare better at actually
                improving site usability. In some cases, the limitations of the
                primary navigation may mean that a specialized index becomes
                a valuable user resource. That thought crosses my mind every
                time I try to find a product on Adobe’s site. Although
                excellent in many other respects, I find the choice of product
                categories baffling – Illustrator is a Web Publishing product
                while Photoshop is a Digital Imaging product. And Adobe’s
                new audio package, Audition, comes under Digital Video! An alphabetical
                product index is what I really want, but unfortunately, the page
                that looks the most promising – the All link under Products – uses
                all the infuriating categories I just mentioned.  Specialized indices, guides and topic pages allow better “cross-silo” access.
                Information that may have been hidden away deep within a departmental
                site, is put into its proper context and made readily available.
                Topic pages allow links to be presented in a variety of arrangements
                according to users’ goals, while guides are slightly more
                elaborate. They have the added advantage of allowing a judicious
                amount of explanatory text to be added where the terminology
                of an index or topic page may be inadequate.  The bottom-up approaches are less to do with presenting a site’s
                current pages under a new light and more to do with structure.
                The main activities are 
              
                     content modeling; metadata development;  Content modeling involves finding useful relationships between
                different types of data that might currently be hidden in different
                silos. The example Lou used was of a music site with a variety
                of CD-related information within the e-commerce silo linking
                to group and event data currently held by different departments
                in other silos. While this strategy may or may not improve the
                actual usability of the site, it does give much better scope
                for providing services that are truly useful compared to the
                static alternatives offered by printed media. The development
                of metadata – fields describing the content in ways that
                make such links and related searches possible – plays an
                important role in the bottom-up approaches. So too do the issues
                of semantic consistency and relationships. Semantic consistency
                is provided through controlled vocabularies, meaning that concepts
                are described in one and only one way within a site’s content.
                Semantic relationships allow the controlled vocabulary to be
                mapped onto a variety of user-oriented terms. For example, the
                controlled vocabulary term “personal digital assistant” might
                be mapped by users entering search terms of “handheld”, “PDA”, “PocketPC”,
                etc.  Search is an important topic in its own right. Unlike site
                maps, search is present on the vast majority of sites and the
                first tool out of the box for many users. However, there are
                a number of issues that conspire to make search less useful than
                it might be: 
              
                     too few results; too many results; irrelevant results.  Some of these problems will be addressed by good metadata and
                controlled vocabularies, but sometimes more is needed: 
              
                     helpful feedback regarding combinations of search terms; control over areas searched or context of terms; spell checking.  The impact of this last issue cannot be underestimated and
                of course search engines such as Google are setting the standard
                in this area. When users come to your site, they will expect
                to have spelling errors either corrected or drawn to their attention.
                More important still in many cases is the issue of spell checking
                on internal employee directories. Many, many proper names are
                simply not spelt the way they sound. Forcing users to make multiple
                guesses or to revert to the printed alphabetical is just not
                a good use of technology. Especially when it means standing in
                reception trying to guess the correct spelling of the person
                you are trying to visit as happened to me recently.  I have not covered everything in the full day’s seminar
                but I hope I have given something of the flavor of Lou’s
                approach to EIA. It seems to me to be very pragmatic in dealing
                with real problems found in many large organizations. I would
                not suggest it as a replacement to user-centered design and usability
                techniques, but as a team they should work well together. ReferencesRosenfeld, Louis and Morville, Peter. 2e, 2002. Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, O'Reilly: Sebastopol, CA. [Amazon.com]   [Amazon.co.uk] Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox “Site Map Usability”: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020106.html The AuthorWilliam Hudson is principal consultant for Syntagm Ltd, based
                near Oxford in the UK. His experience ranges from firmware to
                desktop applications, but he started by writing interactive software
                in the early 1970's. For the past ten years his focus has been
                user interface design, object-oriented design and HCI. Other free articles on user-centred design: www.syntagm.co.uk/design/articles.htm ©  2001-2005
                ACM. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here
                by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution.
                The definitive version was published in interactions,
                {Volume 10, Issue 6, November-December 2003} http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/947226.947241
				 |