|
Mar 10
2008
|
A recent edition of Fortune Magazine featured an advertisement for Kent State University’s Information Architecture and Knowledge Management program titled, “Architects of the Information Age.” In reading the advertisement, I paused to ask myself a question: How do you define information architecture? I’ve heard the term described in a number of different ways. Some people seem to use the term on a micro level to refer to the structure of documents while others take a more macro viewpoint by looking at information structures as a whole. The advertisement defined an information architect as someone who can,
…spot recurring patterns, organize meaningful categories, give things names people will recognize, and place information where people can easily find it. They help businesses arrange their products and services; and they help search engines accurately index the Internet.
How do you define information architecture? Click here to see the full article.

I’m often asked to explain social software to others, and it seems, more often than not, that people fail to see the benefits. The connections between RSS, social bookmarking, and even blogging to career development, increased knowledge, and networking are not often made. Am I not explaining the concepts clearly? I think this is a common problem with social software. Some people simply don’t understand how to apply the technology.
Many organizations are moving to XML-based authoring to ensure the consistency and reusability of content everywhere it flows. To do this, these organizations are adopting information standards such as the Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA). The problem, as many see it, is that the DITA Specification is more geared toward technical documentation such as policies and procedures. Will this always be the case?