Information Architecture Graveyards

I have dug up some examples (which weren’t hard to find) of instances where a website’s information architect a.) never existed b.) went on strike or c.) just plain sucked at their job.

An IA Graveyard is a collection of content that, for some reason, would not fit into the existing architecture of a website, often resulting in confusion and a lack of findability for the end user. A lack of proper planning, dramatic changes to an organization’s infrastructure, flat out laziness or a combination of all three often lead to these data dumping grounds.

“Quick Links”

So someone wrote an “important” article that doesn’t fit into any of the content areas defined by the site’s architecture… Why not just add the title or topic of the new article to a list of Quick Links?  Typically consisting of a laundry list of topics and titles that a user must sift through, these lists quickly get out of hand and offer no help to a user trying desperately to find information on your website.  The ironically labeled “Find it Now” feature of the Little League website is a prime example of a list of links that grew out of control.

If you’ve resorted to building a handy list of “Quick Links” on your website, it’s time to consider a few things (especially number one):

1. Is this content really necessary?
2. Does the content fit into or duplicate any existing content buckets; can it be modified to work into the existing architecture?
3. Is it time to modify or redesign the site architecture?

IfAQ – Infrequently Asked Questions

At some point people forgot what the “F” in FAQ stood for.  FAQs have transitioned from a useful Q&A repository into a wasteland of unorganized and often irrelevant content.  My advice: avoid setting aside an FAQ section in the site’s architecture entirely.  Design the architecture and craft the content in such a way that it will address the topics that are of primary concern to your users.  Kevin Kelly agrees:

And of course, your FAQ does not need to be in the form of a Q&A at all. You can cover the same ground by writing it in prose, or essay form, or even a story.

Doing this requires that you do your homework; understand the topics your users are primarily interested in and glean a solid understanding of how they would like to search for and find that information.  If, after doing your homework and researching your audience, the content on your website still hasn’t answered your users’ questions, make it easy for them to contact you directly to get a personal answer.

Don’t be a Lazy IA!

Speak with users and site stakeholder to ensure that the site is well-planned to accommodate necessary content.  Push back when stakeholders start creating content that doesn’t have a home within the site’s structure.  Don’t be afraid to ask the tough questions, especially: is this content really adding value for the user? If the content isn’t valuable for the user or meeting the overall business goals, it doesn’t belong on the website.  Stop that IA graveyard before it gets out of control and makes you look bad.

37 Signals vs. Don Norman

Wired magazine’s feature about the founders of 37 Signals has caused a minor skirmish in the user experience community, and I’m choosing sides.

Donald Norman, usability guru, who was quoted in the Wired article, blasted 37 Signals’s Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson on his blog after the article was published.

Now, I have always admired 37signals… But I’ve tried their products and although they have admirable qualities, they have never quite met my needs: Close is not good enough. After reading the article, I understand why: the developers are arrogant and completely unsympathetic to the people who use their products.

He then goes on to re-assert his argument that simplicity is actually not something that users are looking for in a product, and that the idea of developers designing software purely for themselves is a recipe for fail.  While Norman makes a valid argument, especially in his post script, I think that he has missed the point.

37 Signals posted a retort to Norman’s criticism, and did an excellent job of explaining their point of view and design process:

Designing for ourselves first yields better initial results because it lets us design what we know. It lets us assess quality quickly and directly, instead of by proxy. And it lets us fall in love with our products and feel passionate about what we make. There’s simply no substitute for that.

Jason Fried’s open letter to Don Norman is well-written, has some good quotes on user experience design by Steve Jobs and describes how the staff at 37 Signals reviews and edits countless feature requests in order to avoid feature bloat.

In my experience, designing for yourself first makes a lot of sense, as long as your needs are representative of the audience whom you are designing for.

LinkedIn Redesign Review

I’ve been a LinkedIn member for several years, but it’s a social networking website that I rarely visit or use. Frankly, I didn’t get it. Tasks like updating a profile, which should be simple to do, always left me perplexed. My interactions with the site generally consisted of accepting requests (via email) to join people’s networks. To date, I’ve amassed a total of 84 LinkedIn connections, but overall the site provided me with little value. Many of my colleagues have expressed a similar lack of regard for the utility of the site.

Today, LinkedIn publicly revealed a new user interface that attempts to improve on the poor UX many of us have experienced with the website in the past. A lot of what LinkedIn has changed resembles other social networking/social media UI designs; do the enhancements work for the online community of business professionals?

LinkedIn Visitor User Experience

A new visitor to the LinkedIn website is presented with a fairly high-level description of the website’s services. The three services that are prominently featured include connecting with colleagues & classmates, job seeking and expert advice. There is a link for users who want more detailed information, but I have a feeling that the vast majority of people who come to the site have at least an idea of its purpose—many were likely solicited to come to the site via an email invitation from a LinkedIn member. The registration call to action is clear and well-placed on the page.

LinkedIn Member Dashboard

Enough about the visitor page; the real design changes took place for the registered users! A few improvements immediately stand out:

1. The navigation has been refined. Gone are the tabs; replaced by a Flickr-style drop-down navigation menu. It’s visually appealing and simple.
2. Many of the most commonly used features are now easily accessed via the left sidebar. There are expandable menus that reveal direct links to a user’s Profile, Contacts, Inbox and Groups.
   3. Another feature of the left sidebar is the status update—anyone who uses Facebook will recognize that LinkedIn has appropriated the idea.
3. Facebook users will also see similarities to the main content area featuring Network Updates; Facebook calls this a News Feed, and it’s part of what makes Facebook so sticky.
4. LinkedIn has also borrowed from several sites that use small, customizable content modules which they currently feature in the lower-right area of the homepage.

Overall, this is a step in the right direction for LinkedIn. I love the Profile Views feature which informs users about who and how many visitors viewed their profile page. Additionally, the Network Updates will help change the paradigm of the website and encourage users to engage more with members of their network. Profile editing has lost its mystery—a big plus. There are also featured news items geared directly to a member’s interests and affiliations.

On the down side, there is an awful lot of content vying for my attention. I think that new users will still be a bit perplexed as to how to interact with the various features of the site. I’m also not seeing a lot of originality. LinkedIn is looking to other successful Web 2.0 style websites and taking bits and pieces. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but there is also something to be said about innovation in this space.