Citation - Dillon, A. (2002). Information architecture in JASIST: Just where did we come from? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(10), 821-823.

Keyword - Information Architecture

從 Boston 2000 舉辦第一屆 IA Summit 之後到2002 之間，歸納6項 IA相關社群與活動中關注的本質性問題(IA summit, ASIST SIG-IA)

Issue #1 Defining Information architecture | 定義何謂資訊架構

• Dillion 認為IA的定義仍是個開放的議題。而他自己偏向由經營與組織面向，同時考慮個人與社會的接受度。
• 此處 Dillion 提出了他自己的定義：「資訊架構是：設計、製作、評估具備能廣被所預期的利害關係人在個人方面與社會方面可接受的資訊空間的過程」
  IA is the term used to describe the process of designing, implementing, and evaluating information spaces that are humanly and socially acceptable to their intended stakeholders.
  • Dillion 認為IA的專業本質上是一種技藝(craft nature)
    「我將資訊架構當作一種技藝，因為在產生成品的過程中，同時需要設計與製造工藝兩者的考量，這符合我們分類技藝不同於工程的特色。」
    “I consider IA to be a craft because it manifests the classically defined craft characteristics of producing functional artifacts through a process that does not separate design from manufacture. (p.822)”

Issue #2 Information Architecture or Architects of Information? | 資訊架構，或資訊的建築師？

• 這關係到，資訊架構是一種角色(role, 專業職能) 或是一種過程(process, 方法或程序)
• Cohill(1991)主張，需要有一種資訊架構師(Information Architect)，一種能夠結合技術、組織理論、人因工程知識的專案管理者。
  Cohill (1991) made the argument that there is a need for a new professional, the information architect, a project manager who combined technical knowledge of computation with knowledge of organizational theory and ergonomics.
• Dillon 認為建立起「資訊架構師」這樣的角色是有意義的，但早期為了建立與劃分出資訊架構師的角色與專業職能，資訊架構社群討論與解釋了許多「什麼不是資訊架構」，而不是「資訊架構能做什麼」。雖然定義與劃分資訊架構的內涵是重要的，但如果大眾並不認同或理解資訊架構專業的貢獻，那麼資訊架構這個專業領域也無法獲得立足點。
  Although I believe it is possible to continue talking about information architects as if they play a distinct, agreed role in today's world, such talk will only get us so far. Beyond the individual job title there needs to be an accepted and recognized process with demonstrable outputs in which such professionals are engaged. If anything, the early stages of the IA debate have been conducted by people more interested in explaining what IA is not, rather than what it is. And although there is a general weariness over the constant search for an agreed definition of lA, it is difficult for a field to gain a foothold if its own practitioners cannot publicly reach agreement.(p.822)
• Dillion 認為應該把焦點放在資訊架構專業的方法與程序上，而非執著於特定的職位名稱。

Issue #3 Big IA- little IA? | 大資訊架構，或小資訊架構？

• 小資訊架構(師)： 設計或製作詮釋資料、控制詞彙。特定專業如圖書館資訊科學、資訊分類、組織與資訊檢索專業，網站規劃。較明確且易管理。
• 大資訊架構(師)： 提供整體設計的願景與策略。塑造資訊空間中的使用者經驗。

Issue #4 IAs and/or UE? | 資訊架構，或使用者經驗？

同「小資訊架構」與「大資訊架構」的問題，Dillon 認為大資訊架構應該涵蓋小資訊架構與使用性專業，成為更完整的使用者經驗專業。

Issue #5 If It Ain't the Web It Ain't IA? | 資訊架構與網際網路

當然不只是網站設計。

Issue #6 Experience or Qualification? | 依經驗，或是依資格？

Dillon 提到有一些新的課程與學程開設中。

.

file link - Google Schloar, XXC