Ah, so I omitted my own definition. I apologize for my mistake.
President, Semantic Studios
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:16 AM
To: IXDA list
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] the alignment of the practices and outcomes
On Mar 31, 2009, at 7:05 AM, Peter Morville wrote:
> It's disingenuous to omit the fourth definition just because it
> weakens your case.
Sorry, I didn't see the 4th definition. Was quoting from:
Which doesn't have #4. #4 seems less about what information architecture
*is* than it is about what IAs do. Don't think it weakens my case much, if
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
What would be an interesting and useful exercise (possibly for the
UXnet folks to take on) would be to take three complex, distinct
products and, using something like JJG's Elements or the diagram of
the disciplines of user experience I made a few months ago <http://www.kickerstudio.com/blog/images/ux.jpg
> map the disciplines onto the products. Show how all the pieces fit
together without regard to WHO is doing them, only WHAT is actually
involved in making these complex products.
For the products, some representative ones would be helpful. A complex
website (a la Yahoo), a mobile device (laptop, phone), an interactive
Might end most of this discussion if we all had concrete examples to