the alignment of the practices and outcomes ofIAand IxD

31 Mar 2009 - 9:23am
7 years ago
1 reply
730 reads

Ah, so I omitted my own definition. I apologize for my mistake.

Peter Morville
President, Semantic Studios

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at
[mailto:discuss-bounces at] 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
ofIAand IxD

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
at all.


Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at
Unsubscribe ................
List Guidelines ............
List Help ..................


31 Mar 2009 - 11:01am
Dan Saffer

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 <
> 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
point to.


Syndicate content Get the feed