Tag Archives: information architecture

Information Architecture and Digital Libraries (Part 4)

Posted on by acrystelle
Reply

The Information Architecture and Digital Libraries series is now up to Part 4. The previous three posts have discussed: -

  1. The (potential) role of information architecture principles and practices for digital libraries;
  2. Understanding the information environment as a key enabler of information architecture implementation, and
  3. Defining findability, its role in information architecture and practices involved in making content ‘findable’.

Discussion of key concepts and principles continue to be situated within an information setting involving an engineering technical library at an airline using a company intranet to deliver an online information service.

In this post, the concept of ‘usability’ is defined and separated from the concept of ‘findability’.

On a side note, let’s break up the term ‘usability’, it can have more than one meaning for digital libraries. Okay, so ‘usability’ would mean ‘able to be used’. But what is ‘able to be used’ for a digital library? The content? User interface? I would argue that it would mean both. A digital library needs to consider the format of the content being made available online (or on an intranet), as well as interface used to retrieve from the library collection.

Most of the information architecture literature concerning usability is focused on a website’s (or intranet) ability to be used. Little discussion is evident regarding the concept being applied to a digital library setting.

Usability is, of course, user-centric, and like ‘findability’ requires a comprehensive understanding of the information environment. For the most part, this will include the context and users – their information seeking behaviour, experience with using the intranet, tasks required to be completed with the information, and preferences (and operational requirements) for ways in which to search and retrieve information. Usability of an information architecture, or digital library is then defined by the user/s, and each situation will be different to the next.

According to Jeffcoat, King and Jannik (2005), usability is a “measure of success a user achieves when utilising a product or system” (p. 236). Usability is not an absolute concept, and may also be defined by the extent to which a website (or intranet) is 1) easy to learn; 2) efficient to use; 3) memorable; 4) error (in)frequent, and 5) achieves satisfaction of the user (Jeffcoat King & Jannik, 2005, p. 236). What is not discussed is defining a measure for ‘easy’. What is ‘easy’? What makes an architecture ‘efficient’? And how is satisfaction achieved amongst the system’s users? Answers to these questions are, and will be, subjective.

The concept of usability is often discussed interchangeably with findability. A separation between the two terms is required to understand the role of each in information architecture practice and implementation. Design of an information architecture, its structure, organisation of content and navigation facility, comes from effective content collection development and management. That is, the content of the digital library collection is relevant, accurate and applicable to the airline’s information environment and aircraft fleet, as well as each technical document’s description is complete and recorded in a consistent manner. It becomes clear, as shown in the diagram below, that usability is not only dependent on the findability of content, but is also defined by how the content metadata is used to develop a usable interface from which to search and retrieve technical data and documentation from the digital library’s intranet site.

Distinguishing the concept of usability from findability….

Focus: efficient, ease to use search and retrieval.

Orientataion: experience and user.

Achieved by: building on the established and maintained findability of library content, organising content and designing navigation in a way which effectively responds to user information seeking behaviour and operational requirements for task completion.

Jeffcoat King, H. & Jannik, Catherine. M. (2005). Redesigning for usability: Information architecture and usability testing for Georgia Tech Library’s website. OCLC Systems & Services, 21(3), 235-243.

Information Architecture and Digital Libraries (Part 3)

Posted on by acrystelle
Reply

“Information Architecture and Digital Libraries Part 2” discussed the importance of understanding the information environment when delivering an information service in a digital space. Information needs inform the three focus areas – context, content and users – of defining an approach to information architecture design for a digital library.

Information architecture is most concerned with increasing ‘findability’ of content within a shared, information space. (Batley, 2007, p. 3)…….What is findability?

You know what? I can’t define ‘findability’. In fact, I don’t think I’ve seen a definition. Where ‘findability’ is discussed in the literature, I’ve found only descriptions and discussions about what may make up or determine it. How can I discuss something I cannot define (yet)?

Okay, I’ll take a slight side step and let you in on some feedback I’ve received for my paper. Attempting to identify relationships between key concepts of information architecture into an over arching framework was, in the marker’s words, brave. Certainly brave to do so in under 3000 words. If my framework is it be solid, for lack of a better word, or well developed, I need definitions of key concepts. With this said, I don’t think my thinking around key information architecture concepts are completely lost or illogical. What I’m trying to achieve is to separate the key concepts in a way which defines each of their roles as they contribute to information architecture practice and design. To discuss key concepts separately is definitely a challenge…..and I do love challenges.

So here goes….

Findability

Findability. If I break down the term I would think it to mean that content is able to be found within a system. The focus here then is to provide or enable this ability. An understanding of the information environment will ultimately determine what makes content findable. Measuring or evaluating how findable content is, will be different in each scenario. A definition for findabiity will be dependent on the context in which the library is situated – expectations of the system, technology used and available in the organisation, (in the case of an engineering technical library) operational and regulatory requirements and business objectives – as well as the content the library holds in the collection and how it is managed and maintained (Morville & Rosenfeld, 2007, p. 25). Findability is then firstly achieved with an appropriate response to the library’s information environment. Secondly, findability is achieved with organising, classifying and describing content – effectively, content management practices.

Content management involved in library management and information architecture practices, underpin the entire library system architecture (Batley, 2007, p. 145). Core concepts involved in content management, more like content maintenance, are: -

  • Indexes and indexing
  • Classification
  • Cataloguing
  • User-centred design

(Batley, 2007, p. 4-9).

The diagram below depicts the relationship between understanding the information environment (which informs the focus and approach) and content management practices to achieve findability.

Metadata

Establishing findability requires identifying how each item or document type can be distinguished from another. Findability lies in the ‘groundwork’ of library processes and practices. That is, the library content’s metadata. For an engineering technical (digital) library, appropriate and consistent selection of metadata used to catalogue each technical document increases control and improves management of the collection (Batley, 2007, p. 143). As metadata is usually associated with resource discovery and retrieval, there is no doubt of the direct influence metadata selected for resource description has on the possible ways in which the resource can be searched within the digital library system (Batley, 2007, p. 144).

I can now start to see the concept of findability take some shape….

Focus: resource discovery and retrieval.

Orientation: context and content.

Achieved by: library’s understanding of and response to the information environment, in the form of appropriate content management processes and practices.

Morville, P. & Rosenfeld, L. (2007). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (3rd ed.). CA, USA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Batley, S. (2007). The I in information architecture: the challenge of content management. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 59(2), 139-151.

One, giant leap…

Posted on by acrystelle
Reply

One. Massive. Semester.

Taking a step back from it all now, this last semester was indeed challenging. I’ve tried new things. I’ve learnt A LOT. Yes, it has been one, giant leap for my LIS career.

While only enrolled in one subject (focusing on web content), I also conducted a small research project of my own and produced my first conference paper, to be presented at the New Librarians’ Symposium (NLS5), held in Perth later this year. Not to mention my full-time paid work, organising events for ALIA New Graduates group and writing an article for the association’s ‘InCite’ magazine. Phew!

How did I deal with it? Well, to be honest I just kept truckin’ through it. Yes, deadlines were tough, and yes, I did run out of ‘steam’ towards the end. But I really do believe I kept a fair amount of focus on tasks throughout the entire time. Again, how? You ask. I planned well and was systematic. Simple. Implementation of the ‘Getting Things Done’ methodology assisted with making me stop and think about the next actions required for both my subject and research project. I input these into my task manager app on my phone (which also syncs to my Mac). A weekly review of tasks ahead enabled me to manage my (huge) workload, re-schedule and juggle tasks around as needed. I used project folders (or document wallets), organised on a rack, to hold all my notes, readings, etc pertaining to each. Flexible hours at work were a bonus. Even with my systematic approach, I ran into hiccups and mistakes.

I’d never started or written a blog before.

I’d never written a conference paper before.

I’d never written an article for ALIA’s InCite before.

I’d little background knowledge prior to commencing my Masters subject.

I’d never formally gathered data before for a REAL project/ conference paper.

That’s a few ‘firsts’.

Notice that these ‘firsts’ are primarily focused on writing? Ah ha! Written communication was a skill I identified as needing improvement at the beginning of the year. I’ve taken up every reasonable opportunity to write. As a professional (and perhaps academic in-the-making), I need to write well.

Guaranteed, I make life hard on myself. But if it wasn’t hard, everybody would be doing it! If I want to learn about something, information architecture for example, I’ll go learn as much as possible. That’s just how I am. I’m also privileged to have academic staff (on hand) to make me feel comfortable to discover things for myself. ;)

The most significant ‘take aways’ from what I’ve learnt this semester are: -

  • content management and systems
  • information architecture
  • web content governance
  • developing skills in HTML
  • connectivism and personal learning networks
  • conference writing process

Learning about content management systems and information architecture have coincided with projects I’ve instigated at work in the technical library. This has worked out really well as I believe I’m now informed with the basic, necessary knowledge to proceed.

Looking to next semester, I’ll again be enrolled in one subject which will compliment my newly found interest in information architecture, and presenting my paper on Personal Learning Networks at NLS5. I feel I need a bit of a break, a breather.

Between now and then, I intend to catch up on and finish readings for CCK11, read up about conducting research, and reassess skills development and create a plan for the next six months.

There’s not much I would change about my approach to my workload. I guess the one thing I would like to improve is my attention to detail, and deciding on a method and sticking to it. From something as simple as recording and tracking research articles I’ve read, to reviewing my task list.

The ‘keys’ I’ve learnt these last few months are: -

  1. Know your (productivity) limits.
  2. Be systematic and proactive.
  3. Identify next actions – look at the tasks/steps required, don’t view the whole project as a single task.
  4. Look forward, not backwards – focus on what you can do, not dwell on how you may have screwed up.

One, giant leap. Yes, indeed.

I’ve been challenged.

I’ve struggled.

I’ve learnt.

I’ve achieved.

Information Architecture and Digital Libraries (Part 2)

Posted on by acrystelle
1

For a library that delivers an information service in a digital space firstly requires a comprehensive understanding of the information environment in which it’s situated. It is important to identify information needs from both the user and organisational perspectives. In the case of an engineering technical library, there are also operational requirements to meet and industry regulations to satisfy, with regards to the library’s content – its use, maintenance and access to the collection.

An approach from the ‘bottom up’ looks at the tasks library users are required to complete as part of their job, as well as the series and patterns of activities undertaken to meet information needs. Morville and Rosenfeld (2007, p. 35) identify four common information needs: -

  • “known item” seeking – the user knows exactly what they’re looking for
  • “exploratory seeking – the user knows a few attributes of what they need, so a few search results will suffice
  • exhaustive search – the user requires a complete listing on a particular attribute or combination of attributes
  • “re-finding” – placing the search result aside, like a “saved search”, so the user may quickly return to the document

I, myself, have found definition of these information needs useful as I work to re-design an intranet site for my engineering technical library. Any ideal functionality will not happen all at once. I’ve had to break up the improvements into a series of “phases”, focusing on what is critically important to deliver first.

A ‘top-down’ approach to identifying information needs looks at organisational objectives and operational requirements, as they too, impact on what the digital library (engineering technical library, for example) holds in its collection, who will use the information and how the information should be managed and maintained.

Understanding the information environment then informs the approach taken to the information architecture design process, and develops the focus through which the digital library must take in order to effectively integrate information architecture practices into ‘every day’ processes and service orientation. According to Morville and Rosenfeld (2007), there are three areas of focus for information architecture methodology (p. 24-25).

  • Context – organisational objectives, operational requirements, resources, technology, politics, culture, industry regulations
  • Content – existing structure, document and data types, content diversity, volume
  • Users – audience, tasks, needs, information seeking behaviours, experience with technology and existing system

One may argue that the “context” is the information environment. However I would argue that an information environment cannot be without the content it requires, nor the users who need to interact with the system to search and retrieve information. An approach (or focus) is largely driven by context, yes, but I see all three impacting on each other. Aviation industry regulations (context) wouldn’t be be without the information needs of users and organisations, and there would be no focus or objective of a digital (engineering technical) library’s collection without the governing industry regulations or the users who require access to the collection. In order to satisfy the demands and expectations with the context, an information architecture need evolve around user (and organisation) situation, be task-based and ‘searching behaviour’ (user) focused (Kirby, 2006, p. 11).

I shall leave you with a diagram which depicts how I see the information environment. I’ve attempted to identify the relationship between information needs and the focus areas required to proceed with an information architecture approach to delivering a digital library service.

As always I welcome any feedback, thoughts, further ideas. The paper I’ve written (for assessment in my Masters course) is but my first attempt at understanding information architecture key concepts and principles. Please let me know if you think I’ve missed anything. I’ve developed an interest in information architecture and only wish to further my understanding.

Kirby, E. (2006). Improving intranet usability at AXA. Knowledge Management Review, 9(4), 10-11.

Morville, P. & Rosenfeld, L. (2007). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (3rd ed.). CA, USA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Information Architecture and Digital Libraries (Part 1)

Posted on by acrystelle
2

For my last assignment for the semester, I had chosen to look at information architecture for digital libraries. I suggested a framework, defining each element’s role, relationships between them and arranging them in a way that constitutes a “big picture” of information architecture principles and practice.

In a series of posts, I will share my views of information architecture key concepts and principles. I certainly don’t have all the answers (though I make every effort to try!), but the framework I suggest is an attempt to explain each concept as they contribute to the final outcome and ‘state’ of information architecture design.

Information architecture practice is relevant to a digital library as they share a common goal – both are concerned with achieving findability (Batley, 2007, p. 3). Concepts and principles of information architecture need a slightly different approach in their application, primarily because digital libraries not only have a user interface, but also have a collection (of mostly external content) to effectively manage, organise and structure in a way that makes findability efficient for the library user. An example is the engineering technical library I work in. Content is not generated internally, it is gathered from many vendors, all with various ways to describe and label technical data and documentation.

The role of information architecture is to enable access to content with a systematic approach to interface design, organised and structured in a way which facilitates the user’s quest for required technical data or documentation (Toms, 2002, p. 855). Designing functionality, enabling access, starts with identifying and understanding information needs from both the user and organisational perspectives. In the case of my engineering technical library, practices and processes also need to satisfy industry regulations which govern the use, collection, management and access to technical data and documentation, and meet operational requirements which dictate how technical data and documentation needs to be accessed.

Given the scope of information architecture being applicable to “shared environments”, the practice may therefore lend itself to designing a digital space which delivers an information service, such as a digital library via a company intranet. Intranet users are highly critical of poor usability (White, 2002, p. 47). Integration of information architecture practice into the effective management of a digital library (achieve findability and usability) can only mean benefits in the form of increased productivity. The effects may not be realised directly, but if I can design the technical library’s intranet site in a way that improves usability and decreases the time it takes for library users to search and retrieve information, the ‘flow on’ effects can potentially be seen in other operations and objectives, such as ‘on time performance’. The goal of the technical library is to provide effective access to the library collection, through an intranet, providing a user experience which enables efficient search, navigation and retrieval of information. Information architecture practice can certainly assist with achieving this goal.

 

Batley, S. (2007). The I in information architecture: the challenge of content management. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 59(2), 139-151.

Toms, Elaine. G. (2002). Information interaction: Providing a framework for information architecture. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(10), 855-862.

White, M. (2002). Information architecture and usability. EContent, 25(4), 46-47.