Planes, Trains and Information Architecture
As a short interlude in between two postings on Activity-Centred Design vs. Human-Centred Design, here’s something I saw on a recent train ride. The word “overkill†came to my mind. “Error†was one of the next words I thought about.
Good information architecture of a user interface not only supports the user in reaching his goal efficiently, but it also enables him to quickly discover when an error has occurred. This does not only include user errors and the system’s reaction, but also (structural) system errors. With a design that, even in its “correct†state, is hard to understand, it might be impossible for a user to discover when things get scrambled up on the interface.
One might say that when a system is delivered, it should not contain any structural errors. Which is right. But in the preceding phases in which the system is conceptualised and (hopefully) empirically and heuristically tested, it might be hard for persons involved to easily discover even fundamental errors, when the interface is overly complex and too little thought has been invested in good information architecture. A lot of time might be invested in figuring out the correct information architecture that serves as the ultimate reference for determining when an error has occurred that must be fixed.
So: “Keeping it simple†may not only be a goal, it may well be a starting point also.
