Abel Lenz Insists That Information Architecture Really Is A Creative Pursuit is the link du jour, pointed to by the many link harvesting blogs on UX that now exist (remember when it was just tomalak?).
Reading through his article, I had to question the examples Abel gives… does a hut need an architect? A track house? The Royal Tenebaums is an extremely basic site that has been slathered with a lush flash interface and mystery meat navigation on top of mystery meat navigation (which might be fine for a movie site, as an extension of the movie’s entertainment. Though it leads me to question if it’s right for this particular movie. but I digress)
It’s the equivalent of the house up the hill from me– a concrete bunker of a building, a squat square one story thing that has been painted mysteriously with zebra stripes and leopard spots.
There are houses that don’t need architects– there are sites that don’t need them either. Or won’t need them, once we have prefab plans to hand out: here is your basic store. Here is your basic movie site. Here is your basic band site.
Yahoo is already capitalizing in this by building a strip mall of its own, and quite successfully as Jakob notes.
So to address his key assertion “IA is a creative act,” –well, yes it can be, but like design and real-word architecture it is the challenges and constraints that make it something great. A simple site, a problem that has been solved again and again– can this be a creative act? Can something wonderful come from trailer-cast-director-story?
Then again, people keep reinventing the spoon and fork…