For the past 11 weeks I’ve been developing the information architecture for a large multi-national website. Since embarking on this impossibly large project, I’ve notice that people’s understanding of where information architecture ends, and design begins, is often wrong. So let’s set the record straight..

It is an easy mistake to design a website within the wireframes. But then the trick is to get the client to understand that these are simply blueprints you’ll build upon. Because the search box is shown on the ‘right’ in the wireframes doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll stay there in the design phase.

I found this today, on Seth Godin’s blog, which clarifies the role of information architecture (and from an extremely credible source too).

You can architect a computer server set up to make it more efficient. You can architect a train station to get more people per minute through the turnstiles.

Most broken websites aren’t broken because they violate common laws of good design. They’re broken because their architecture is all wrong. There’s no strategy in place.

It’s as simple as that. Information architecture is about defining a clear, logical path to obtain the user behaviour you desire. Whether the page looks better in pink, of if it would look cool with some JavaScript animation is another matter.

Both architecture and design are as important as each other, but should definitely arrive at different stages.

wanna say something?

If you've got an opinion about Architecture vs. Design - then why not say something? You can even subscribe to these comments via RSS!

Name (required):

Email (required): Put a photo next to your comment!

Do what now?

To put a little photograph of yourself next to your comment, all you have to do is get a 'gravatar'. It's quick to setup, it's free and you can grab one here!

Website:

Comment: