Information Architecture for the World Wide Web

1

Information Architecturefor the World Wide Web

Thunder Lizard’sWeb Design World ‘99Seattle, WashingtonJuly 21, 1999

Louis RosenfeldArgus Associates, Inc.

2

Introduction

Who am I?

Brief Bio• President of Argus Associates, an

information architecture consulting firm (Ann Arbor, Michigan).

• Bias: Librarianship and Information Science (LIS) background.

• Bias: Work on larger, heterogeneous corporate sites (primarily intranets) for Fortune 500 companies.

• Columnist for Web Review, Internet World magazines.

• Co-author of Information Architecture for the World Wide Web (O’Reilly & Associates, 1998) and others.

3

When do you know you have problems?

When you hear these questions.

Users: “Why can’t I find what I’m looking for?”

Content Owners: “Where should my new content go? And what should I do about all this ROT (Redundant, Outdated, and Trivial content)?”

CIO: “Where’s my ROI? I want my ROI!!”VP: “How come that other VP’s content is

more prominent than mine?”The Web Team: “Who’s in charge here

anyway?”You: “Why can’t I find what I’m looking

for?”

4

“umbrella” site

Common Problem #1

Site development is “organic”, disorganized.

• Content lives in subsites or “silos” that are locally maintained and often reflect the “org chart”.

• The organization and users want an “umbrella”, a common interface to all content.

• Individual subsites are poorly architected and have few or no policies or procedures to deal with maintenance issues.

subsites

5

Common Problem #2

Site structure is an abstract concept.

New medium means that initial focus is on the tangible and sexy; attention has been diverted by the lure of:

• Aesthetically charged visual design.• Hi-octane functionality.• Lucid text (and as much as possible).• Other Cool Stuff.Analogous to building a house without a

blueprint.Subsequent problems are all too apparent

in later generation sites.

6

Common Problem #3

“Information Retrieval” is a foreign phrase.

Information retrieval performance is reduced when addressing the diversity typical of most sites:• Content (formats, types, subject domains).• Users.• Missions/goals/constraints.

Information retrieval is already difficult in narrower contexts.• Rarely one right answer (relevance is

subjective).• Based on language, which is inherently

ambiguous. Example: homographs and synonyms of pitch.

7

What is Information Architecture?

No single definition is perfect...

“Information architects organize content and design navigation systems to help users find the information they need.”

In the context of the Web:• Organize means to group and label content

at the macro (e.g., collections, areas) and micro (e.g., pages, fields) levels.

• Navigation refers to the default organization of the site, the design of page components, and tools such as search engines, indexes, and site maps.

Many definitions; mine clearly biased by librarianship/information science background.

8

Why Is Information Architecture Important?

User’s perspective.

Inability to find information is a major complaint.

Information needs vary (known item, exploratory, comprehensive research).

Preferences vary (searching, browsing; precision, recall).

Expertise varies (query languages, technology literacy).

Scary Fact #1: According to Zona Research, 20% of Internet savvy users have given up at least 3 times while shopping on the Web.

9

Why Is Information Architecture Important?

Producer’s perspective.

Cost of finding information.Cost of not finding information.Maintenance costs.Political costs.Scary Fact #2: According to Jakob

Nielsen and many others, a poor navigation system in a large corporate intranet can cost the company millions in lost employee productivity.

10

Introduction to Information Architecture

Where it fits.

In the context of site development:• Often leads the

discovery/recommendations phase.• Highly collaborative during conceptual

design phase.• Minimal involvement in

production/implementation phase.

11


What the deliverables are.

Blueprints (from top level to “chunk” level).

Major page mockups/templates.Navigation systems.Labeling systems/controlled

vocabularies/thesauri.Policies and procedures.Production work (e.g., classification and

indexing).Training (e.g., educating an indexing

operation).

12


Top-down vs. bottom-up varieties.

“Top-down” Information Architecture• Tie together disparate pockets of content

for improved searching and browsing.• Highly focused on users and information

needs.“Bottom-up” Information Architecture

• Improve searching and browsing within a single, high-volume pocket of content.

• Highly focused on content, content attributes.

Each approach informs the other (no mutual exclusivity).

13


Top-down vs. bottom-up varieties.

Top-down example: Create a common information interface (“umbrella site”) for a corporate intranet with dozens of separate sub-sites.

Bottom-up example: Re-architect a large collection of technical reports.“umbrella”

site

local subsitesBottom-Up Approach

Top-Down Approach

14

Top-Down Components: Organization Systems

Definitions.

Organization Structures• The shape of the information space.• The types of relationships between

content areas or items.• e.g. hierarchies, databases,

hypertext.Organization Schemes

• Pathways for intellectual access.• e.g. by author, by topic, by audience.

15

Top-Down Components: Organization StructuresHow should a site’s content be structured?

Types of Organization Structures• Hierarchies: useful for the top levels of a site.• Databases: organize large bodies of

homogeneous content• Hypertext: complement other structural types.• Hybrids: often make most sense within a site.

hierarchy

database

hypertext

16

Top-Down Components: Organization SchemesHow should my site’s content be organized?

Exact Organization Schemes.• By name, alphabetically (e.g., white

pages).• By geography (e.g., atlas).• By chronology (e.g., timeline).

Characteristics.• Neat and easy to maintain.• Everything has a place (one right

answer).• Extremely useful for users who know

exactly what they’re looking for.

17

Top-Down Components: Organization SchemesHow should my site’s content be organized?

Ambiguous organization schemes.• By topic (e.g., bookstore, yellow pages).• By task (e.g., buy, find, contact).• By audience (e.g., home, small

business, government).Characteristics.

• Messy and full of overlap.• Hard to implement and maintain.• Extremely useful for users who don’t

know exactly what they’re looking for (subject searching, associative learning).

18

Top-Down Components: Labeling Systems

The basics.

Symbols that represent concepts.Types:

• Labels within navigation systems.• Titles and headings.• Links.• Index terms (keywords).• Icons (visual representations of

information).Strive for systems of labels which are:

• Specific and clear (for intended audiences)

• Predictable• Consistent

19

Top-Down Components: Labeling Systems

Where should I get my labels?

Existing Site/Other Content• Don’t throw out the baby with the bath

water.Other Sites

• Check out the competition.Controlled Vocabularies (CVs) and Thesauri

• Standardized sets of terms which describe a specific domain (thesauri contain CVs, relationships between terms (e.g., broader, narrower, see also), and scope notes).

Users and Subject Experts• Focus groups, query analysis, user testing.

20

Top-Down Components: Navigation Systems

Types of navigation systems.Global (site-wide) navigation systems:

rule-based.Local (sub-site) navigation systems: rule-

based.Contextual navigation systems: hand-

crafted.Supplementary navigation systems.

• Tables of contents/site maps.• Site indexes.• Guides and guided tours.

21


What makes a navigation system succeed?Navigation systems need to:

• Provide context. (Where am I?)• Provide flexibility (Where can I go?)• Provide guidance (How can I get

there? And get back to here?)• Make sense (Separate global and

local systems)• Avoid competing with content.

Test your site by seeing if users can answer these questions for random pages.

22


What supplementary navigation type is best?Table of Contents/Site Map

• Reflects site’s organization system (mental model).

• Good for subject searching.Site Index

• Flattens organization system (greater granularity).

• Supports known-item searching.• May provide multiple browsable indexes.

Guide• Highlights a few of the site’s resources for a

specific audience, topic, or task.• Good for introducing users to an aspect of

the site’s content.

23

Top-Down Components: Searching Systems

Searching really sucks...

“Using an on-site search engine actually reduced the chances of success.” (1998 Usability Study by User Interface Engineering)

http://world.std.com/~uieweb/searchart.htm

Percent of Successful Tasks

53%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Without Search With Search

24


…but users demand it.

“Search is one of the most important user interface elements in any large web site...Our usability studies show that more than half of all users are search-dominant.” (Jakob Nielsen, Alertbox, 1997)

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9707b.html

User Behavior (rough figures)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Search Dominant Link Dominant Mixed Behavior

25

QueryQuery


Finding involves more than searching...

BrowseBrowse

SearchSearch

AskAsk

SearchSearch

AskAsk

BrowseBrowse

BrowseBrowse

SearchSearch

AskAsk

BrowseBrowse

BrowseBrowse

BrowseBrowse

BrowseBrowse

SearchSearch

SearchSearch

BrowseBrowse

SearchSearch

BrowseBrowse

BrowseBrowse SearchSearch

AskAsk

BrowseBrowse

SearchSearch

BrowseBrowse

SearchSearch

SearchSearch

BrowseBrowse

AskAskAskAsk

BrowseBrowse

BrowseBrowse

SearchSearch

26

QueryQuery SearchInterface

SearchInterface


…and searching involves more than an engine.

SearchEngine

SearchEngine ContentContent ResultsResults

QueryLanguage

QueryLanguage

QueryBuilders

QueryBuilders

27


How can searching be improved?

Utilize multiple search interfaces.• Expert vs. simple. Distinguish by user

background/discipline/expertise.• Support common information needs

(known item vs. exploratory vs. research).Utilize search zones and leverage document

structure.Support iterative, integrated searching and

browsing (including a “no-dead ends” policy).

Explain what is being searched and how it can be searched.

Avoid default engine configurations, especially default relevance rankings.

28

Top-Down Illustrated

Typical scenario.

“umbrella” site

local subsites

accessby taskaccess

by topicaccess

by audience S

S

SToC

ToC

Ind

29

Top-Down Case Study

Background and challenges.

Began with unclear goals for site.Tension between central administration

and subsidiaries (political divisions, “rogue” Web sites, look and feel issues).

No in-house process for developing a large, distributed, cross-departmental information system.

Many different purposes for site.Multiple audiences for site.

30

Top-Down Case Study

Solutions.

Created umbrella architecture that draws appropriate borders between centrally-maintained site and autonomous departmental sub-sites.

Multiple ways of navigating content.• Search.• Browse by topic, task, audience,

political unit.• Table of contents, site index.

Clear divisions between central and autonomous content embodied in the architecture and related procedures and policies for maintaining content.

31

Bottom-Up Components: Content Analysis

Look for order in the chaos of your content.

Analogous to user surveys.Requires review (generally iterative) of content

samples.Looking for:

• Logical patterns within messy content (e.g., press releases vs. product descriptions).

• Ways to group content (leads to “bottom-up” organization systems design).

• Meta-information opportunities (e.g., existing meta-information, approaches and sources for adding new meta-information).

• Relationships between document types (e.g., parent-child, related, sequential).

32

Bottom-Up Components: Content Modeling and MappingGetting control of content.

Concentrate on meaning and value rather than physical formats (e.g., MS Word vs. Lotus Notes).

Develop document types (logical).• Use grouping exercises.• Enlist content specialist and expert user

input.Develop templates (physical).

• Delineate required vs. optional content components.

• Determine prominence, grouping, and sequence of components.

• Strive for consistency in presentation across as well as within templates (usability gains).

33

Bottom-Up Components: Content Modeling and MappingMatching the model with reality.

ROT (Redundant, Outdated, and Trivial content) removal:• Policy based.• Impacts all aspects of content creation,

maintenance, deletion.Identify missing content.Determine granularity for content

“chunking”:• Break up longer mixed-concept content.• Join together fragments.• Consider contexts: usability, display,

retrieval, reuse, authoring.

34

Bottom-Up Components: Meta-Information

Information about information.

If stored as a record, meta-information constitutes a document surrogate; if stored within document, acts as a representation or labeling of document.

Provides context (e.g., date, publisher).Facilitates retrieval (e.g., author, title, subject

index).• Serves as alternative to major organization

scheme.• An effective alternative to full-text searching.• Can be leveraged for creation of browsable

indices/menus.Consider value of controlled vocabularies for

descriptive indices.

35

Bottom-Up Components: Meta-Information

Indexing: to automate or not?

Automated Approach• Software identifies keywords, eliminates stop

words, assembles inverted index.• Relatively inexpensive.• Poor performance, especially with

heterogeneous content domains and document “richness”.

Manual Approach• Human reviews content, identifies key

concepts, and selects keywords from controlled vocabulary.

• Expensive: Forrester Report, v2, n8, October 1997 says $960,000 for average corporate intranet.

• Better performance (context sensitive).

36

Bottom-Up Components: Relationships

How should content types be linked?

Ad-Hoc Links• Handcrafted; expensive to create and

maintain.• Capable of making powerful associations,

but often subject to interpretation; therefore, “hit or miss” in cognitive value.

Rule-Based Links• Simple: “If a process document and a rate

table document both deal with Product X, then they should always be linked to each other.”

• Rules allow for easy human link creation or automated linking (useful with huge collections of content).

37

Bottom-Up Design

Content modeling

“Messy” Content

relationships (links)

Product Process Reference content model

ContactHandling

“How To” document types

Sequence(step 1, 2, …)

Conditional(If…, Then...)

template typespresentational meta-

information Format/Style

ColorPlatform

logical meta-information

NameContent OwnerProcess Owner

Geographic Eligibility

38

Bottom-Up Case Study

Background and challenges.

Distributed inbound call centers (8,000 customer care associates).

Intranet-based work support application (6,000 unstructured documents).

Users were memorizing, not navigating.Erroneous information was being

provided to customers.Negative impact on training and churn.Single semi-topical hierarchy… hand-

maintained.Content management nightmare.

39

Bottom-Up Case Study

Solutions.

Structured content model.• Suite of document templates.• Linking relationships.• Indexing system with multiple

controlled vocabularies.Functional specifications (auto-generated

browsable indexes).Development and production indexing.Training and documentation.

40

Conclusion

A convergence of perspectives, communities.

Traditional Top-Down Perspective• User-centric work is what “we” (the Web

community) have been doing.• Goals: presentation and usability.

Traditional Bottom-Up Perspective• What mark-up and data modeling

communities traditionally have been up to.• Goals: content reuse and maintenance.

Another Kind of Convergence• Web community increasingly content-

centric.• Mark-up/database communities

increasingly user-centric.

41

Information Architecture Design Process

A phased approach.

42

Argus Associates

Contact information.

Louis Rosenfeld ([email protected])Argus Associates, Inc.221 North Main Street, Suite 200Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104734.913.0010 voice734.213.8082 [email protected]://argus-inc.com

This presentation available from:http://argus-inc.com/conferences/tl-seattle/

Documents

Information Architecture for the World Wide Web