Section 10.8. In Defense of Research

10.8. In Defense of Research

The design or redesign of any complex web site should begin with research leading to the formation of an information architecture strategy. Through research, we aim to learn enough about the business goals, the users, and the information ecology to develop a solid strategy. By creating, presenting, and refining this strategy, we can work toward consensus on the direction and scope of the site's structure and organization.

This strategy will then serve as the roadmap for all subsequent design and implementation work. It will not only drive the information architecture process, but also guide the work of graphic designers, content authors, and programmers. While each of these teams will take different paths, the information architecture strategy ensures that everyone is headed toward a common destination.

Sometimes these are separate phases. Sometimes they are combined into a joint research and strategy phase. Either way, it's important to have the same team of people involved in performing the research and developing the strategy. In cases where these are done separately, the research team tends to lack direction and focus, seeking answers that are interesting but not necessarily actionable, while the strategy team lacks the richness of direct interaction with users, opinion leaders, and content. Only a small percentage of the hands-on learning can be conveyed through formal presentations and reports.

What happens if you don't make the time for research? There's no need to hazard a guess to this questionwe've seen firsthand the very messy results of uncoordinated web development projects. On one occasion, we were brought into a large-scale e-commerce project in midstream. The client had chosen to skip the research and strategy phases because they wanted to "move fast." Graphic designers had created beautiful page templates; content authors had restructured and indexed large numbers of articles; the technical team had selected and purchased a content management system. None of these components worked together. There was no shared vision for how to connect users and content. In fact, nobody could even agree on the primary goals of the web site. The project entered what one participant eloquently called a "death spiral," as each team tried to convince the others that its vision was the right one. The client eventually pulled the plug, deciding it would be more efficient to start over rather than try to salvage the incompatible and fairly misguided efforts of each team.

Unfortunately, this scenario is not uncommon. In today's fast-paced world, everyone's looking for a shortcut. It can be very difficult to convince people, particularly senior managers with little hands-on web experience, of the importance of taking the time to do research and develop a solid strategy. If you're struggling with this problem, the next section might help.

10.8.1. Overcoming Research Resistance

In many corporate settings, mentioning the word research gets immediate resistance. Three common arguments include:

1. We don't have the time or money.

2. We already know what we want.

3. We've already done research.

There are good reasons behind these arguments. Everyone operates under time and budget constraints. Everyone has opinions (sometimes good ones) about what's working and how to fix what's not. And for all but the newest projects, some level of prior research that applies to the current situation has already been done. Fearing the perils of analysis paralysis, business managers tend to be very action-oriented. "Let's skip the research and get started with the real work" is a familiar sentiment.

However, for any major design or redesign project, the information architect must find a way to communicate the importance of conducting information architecture research. Without this careful investigation and experimentation aimed at the discovery of facts, you'll find yourself basing your strategy on the unstable foundation of biased opinion and faulty assumption. Let's review the common arguments for conducting information architecture research.

You're likely to save time and money by doing research

The propensity to skip research and dive into design is often the project manager's version of the paradox of the active user.^[||] The immediate perception of progress feels good but often comes at the expense of overall efficiency and effectiveness. Since the information architecture forms the foundation of the entire web site, mistakes made here will have a tremendous ripple effect.

^[||] Users choose the illusion of speed over real efficiency. This explains why people repeatedly enter keywords into search engines despite bad results. Browsing feels slower.

Our experience (summarized in Figure 10-12) constantly reinforces the idea that by spending the necessary time on research, you'll often shorten the design and implementation phases so much (by avoiding lots of arguments and redesign along the way) that you actually shorten the overall project.

However, the biggest savings will come from the fact that your site will actually work, and you won't have to completely redesign it six months later.

Figure 10-12. The paradox of the active manager

Managers don't know what your users want

Most information architects have "gotten the religion" when it comes to recognizing the importance of user-centered design. Many business managers have not. They confuse what they want, what their bosses want, and what they think users want with what users actually want. The best way to convert these non-believers is to involve them in some user testing. There's no substitute for the humbling experience of watching regular people try to navigate your site.

We need to do information architecture research

Information architects need to ask unique questions in unique ways. Market-research studies and general-purpose usability tests may provide useful data, but they're not enough. Also, you want the same people involved in both testing and design. Throwing old research reports over the wall has limited value.

These battles to defend research are part of the broader war to defend the value of information architecture. To further fortify your defenses, see Chapters 1719.