That being said, making the migration is painful in some areas. One of which was how I handle the lack of productivity software I had in Windows—namely Microsoft Outlook.  As I search around there are a few options in attempting to tackle this problem.

1. Use VMWare Fusion or Crossover to load Windows and then Outlook.
2. Use Microsoft Entourage.
3. Find a way to use the native OS X applications (iCal, Mail.app, and Address Book).

Using Virtualization Technology

This seems straight forward enough on the surface, but on the inside it’s fraught with problems.  First, the idea of using a virtual machine to load productivity software doesn’t seem, well, productive.  This is especially true when I have to dedicate a gig of precious memory to the VM (granted I have 4 GB).  I tried it, and I was able to use it without problem but I wasn’t happy with this option.  I became discontent with it when I started using Mail.app for my personal e-mail. I love the simplicity of the application, and I wanted to use it full time.  I should say I tried Crossover, and I didn’t like it at all. VMWare’s unity feature is far better.

Use Microsoft Entourage

I went out and got a license of MS Office 2008 for Mac.  Word, Excel, and PowerPoint aren’t bad, but they pale in their Windows counterparts. After using the ribbon for so long now I love it. Office 2008 has a “ribbon” of sorts, and it’s not that bad. For quick document work it works fine. If I need more then I can use my virtual machine. However, this isn’t the case for Entourage.

Microsoft Entourage has to be one of the worst e-mail clients I’ve ever used. Sure, it connects to Exchange without a problem, but when you have expectations it will work like Outlook it is very disappointing.  I tried it for a while, and I decided it simply doesn’t cut it. The way you add recipients in e-mail is awful, and I quickly found out that you can’t do HTML e-mail in Entourage which means no embedded links. Epic fail. I hated it, and it made me look to the third option.

Faking Exchange Support

I say “faking,” because the support isn’t native to the OS X apps. Recently, Apple unveiled that the next version of the OS dubbed “Snow Leopard” will have native support for Exchange 2007 in their apps similar to the iPhone (which I use without complaint). But right now my company uses Exchange 2003 which I don’t know if it will be support in Snow Leopard, and it isn’t to be released until next summer.  That leaves a long time for frustration. Surely, there must be a way to do this right?

After searching extensively I discovered I’m not the only who has struggled through this. What surprises me even more is the lack of a third party vendor to fill this void. I would’ve happily paid several hundred dollars for this, but there is nothing out there to accomplish this. It is obvious that only until recently is Apple taking the enterprise environment seriously with Exchange support (no matter how much they may despise it).  I fortunately was able to find a solution in the mean time. Here is my recipe:

Ingredients

1. Microsoft Entourage (bear with me)
2. Mail.app
3. IMAP enabled in Exchange
4. Dock Dodger

Preparation

The preferences pane in Entourage

I discovered that Entourage supports sync services to send calendar events and contacts to the native OS X programs. OK, this is a good start.  As you can see in the screenshot go to Entourage - Preferences and select Sync Services in the left panel.  Then check both boxes to send calender events and contacts to the native applications.  This will via a background service take care of the synchronization from the native apps to Exchange. When you select the option to sync you will receive a prompt, and you will want to choose “Merge Entourage items with Sync Services items” which will allow bi-directional sync between the two. So if you add an event in iCal it will go to Entourage and then Exchange, and if I add an event in my iPhone it will go from Exchange to Entourage to iCal. Not pretty but it works.

Then we have the e-mail issue. This was by far the most difficult and frustrating part. When you create accounts in Mail.app it allows you to create Exchange accounts which is a misnomer. What it means is it will attempt to use Outlook Web Access to send/receive, but it also means you’ll be really using IMAP on an Exchange server.

I found an article which outlines setting up IMAP on Exchange. I had to sweet talk my boss, and he sympathized and helped.  They set up IMAP (Exchange is above me), and that led me to now getting closer to being free of Entourage.  When you set up an account under the Exchange heading you’ll be asked to specify a mail server (such as mail.yourdomain.com) which will come from your Exchange admin. You will also give it the address where you access Outlook Web Access (your webmail address). I was then able to successfully download messages. I had some problems with SMTP. My company uses RPC over HTTPS to connect so I had to use the Password option and specified my credentials (for the username I had to use domain\username).  Then I was up and running!

Cleaning Up

Now it’s working. It’s not pretty, but I wasn’t expecting it to be. It was a utilitarian effort, and it succeeded in accomplishing my goal. But it wasn’t as seamless as I wanted. Entourage would always show up in the dock and also the application switcher. Now I never want to see Entourage anywhere, and I found Dock Dodger. This is a freeware program that removes running applications from the dock and application switcher. By simply dragging the Entourage icon into the app it removed it. Before I did that I click on the icon in the dock and decided to open it at login (as I’ll always need it).

You’ll also notice dialogue windows for the send/receive. I haven’t found a way to completely remove them, but if you close it when it’s running it will go away. Unfortunately, on reboot it comes back. I hope to find an answer to get rid of the dialogue.

Concluding Thoughts

I can now use the native apps, and I am up and running. Entourage now uses around ~75 MB of memory which is much better than the 1 GB option with VMWare Fusion.  I am happy for now, and I look forward to Snow Leopard when I can completely axe Entourage from my life.

I would like to thank Nick Dawson (my Pownce buddy) for empathizing with my struggle and pointing me in the direction I needed.

My company, Mixon Consulting, asked me to write a curriculum on branding SharePoint with my extensive experience with user interface design.  Once I learned the details on how to use the SharePoint platform I was able to put together a curriculum that helps individuals through the painful process.  I’m please with the result, and I look forward to teaching it and help others with the task. Here is an overview of the curriculum:

• Understand the SharePoint platform
• Become acquainted with the differences between various SharePoint interfaces
• See how Microsoft constructed a default interface and how to change it
• Learn the common tasks SharePoint Designer can help you complete in the effort
• Learn how to use technologies such as the data view and data form web parts
• Utilize SharePoint web content management (WCM) features to deliver instant value to your organization
• Create custom master pages, stylesheets, and pages

What Makes This Class Unique?

You might be wondering that after seeing the list above. After all, there are other training companies that provide the above in a curriculum.  There are, however, some serious differences that you’ll get from someone versed in user experience and web standards development.  Here are a few:

• Use free and open source tools to understand an interface
• Learn how to distill functional business requirements when doing design work
• See how information architecture plays an important role in designing interfaces
• Have the opportunity to converse with someone with nearly a decade of interaction and interface design
• Get access to resources to help you in your branding effort
• Learn how to find answers when you need them

If you want more information you can see the official marketing materials on Mixon’s site.

Register Today!

Registrations are being accepted today.  The first class will be on November 11th for three days, and it is $795. If you register by the 30th of this month you’ll get a $50 discount.  Here are links to register.

1. November 11th - 13th
2. December 10th - 12th

Hirsch's Branding Effort

I was recently tagged to “brand” a SharePoint installation for Hirsch Pipe & Supply Co.  I knew it would be an interesting challenge, but I had no idea how bad it truly would be.

SharePoint is built on ASP.NET 2.0 which I had worked with in my previous job. I found ASP.NET very powerful and flexible. Master pages, App_Themes, CSS Friendly Adapters, and more made working on ASP.NET interfaces relatively painless.  Knowing that SharePoint utilized master pages I thought it would be much easier than it was.  However, it turned out to not be the case.

The Default Master Page

I was immediately struck by the mess that is the default master page.  The master page is laid out with, of course, tables which is reminiscent of why Microsoft is such a joke in the designer world.  Well, I decided to rip out the tables, and surely that would make it easier right?  No.  It turns out that SharePoint only uses one standard ASP.NET control (the navigation control), and the rest are SharePoint specific “delegate” controls which made layouts with CSS difficult.  These are of course stored on the file system, and the only way to edit them is to create painful features.  It looked as though I was stuck with extensive tables for much of the layout.

When I did yank out much of the table layouts it only opened up a headache down the road.  It was actually more painful to try and layout it with CSS then just sticking with the table layouts.  What made it difficult are the extensive nuances in the SharePoint interface that are dependent on others.  For instance, I would lay it out in CSS, but when I went to edit the page to add web parts everything went awry due to dependencies on extensive tables for layout.  I was able to lay out the majority of the default master page with CSS, but I ended up reverting to tables for the main content area due to pain after pain. I did go with Heather Solomon’s minimal base master page for publishing sites which was a better start then I had.

The CSS

The fun doesn’t stop there.  SharePoint has a core stylesheet that is over 4,000 lines long.  I’ve dealt with more styles in one shot, but looking at the stylesheet you would think a 10th grader created them.  There is a lack of shorthand, units of measure, and extensive IE proprietary styles.  Add onto the fact there are no comments in the stylesheet it is absolutely useless to attempt to decode it.  You also can’t simply remove the core styles; well, you could, but it’s another headache that is ultimately not worth tackling.  It’s again easier to deal with the bad then try to make it better.

SharePoint does allow you to specify an alternate stylesheet which does, thankfully, get rendered after the core styles.  The cascade becomes your best friend in altering the styles.  You’ll also notice the “classitis” that abounds in the master page and core styles.  They all have a prefix of ms- which is unneeded and unhelpful.  I wasn’t surprised to find a lack of advanced CSS 2 selectors due to the pressure to support IE 6, but they are hardly any descendant selectors which would drastically decrease the amount of classes in the markup.

The JavaScript

I know Microsoft is now supporting jQuery which we can only hope will reduce the amount of “obtrusive” JavaScript through the site.  It reminds me of how I wrote JavaScript back in the day.  Attempting to decode the core JavaScript is a puzzle I didn’t even attempt.  You are once again forced to use proprietary JavaScript instead of taking it on to write it any better.  If they did abstract the obtrusive JavaScript it would drastically decrease the complexity of the markup sent to the browser. I did end up using jQuery to set the size of certain divs, and I also attempted to clone() and append() DOM elements but it proved fruitless.

Hope for SharePoint vNext

I hope, first that I never have to alter the SharePoint UI again, but that the next version of SharePoint will construct a better default UI with the following changes.

1. Use CSS for layouts.
2. Ditch the delegate controls to use more of the standard ASP.NET controls (or at least improve them).
3. Use a well-commented core CSS file with advanced selectors to eliminate the need for classes.
4. Switch to an unobtrusive JavaScript model.
5. An increased focus on accessibility for public-facing sites.

I’ll evaluate each of, what I deem to be, the major functions and tools of SharePoint.  OK, let’s get started.

Windows SharePoint Services - A

Windows SharePoint Services or WSS is now in its third major iteration.  It is the core that MOSS is built upon, and it is where the strength of SharePoint lies.  From it’s incredible Office integration, task and document management, and web part personalization options WSS is what caught my eye and made me desire a career change.There are some minor headaches and pitfalls, but certainly not enough to warrant anything less than an “A” in this category.

Social Networking Capability - B-

Unfortunately, SP didn’t do what I would’ve liked to see in this category.  They introduced “My Sites” in MOSS, but adding colleagues isn’t intuitive and the feature turns into a personal SharePoint site instead of a robust social networking tool for the enterprise.

Blogs and wikis were also introduced in WSS 3, and the inclusion of them is promising but the implementation is poor.  The blog is feature-less allowing only categories and less than impressive personalization features.  The wiki is super basic, and it leaves me confounded on how it seems so quickly implemented.  A look at the benchmark, MediaWiki, will show the lack of robustness in the SP implementation.

Enterprise Search - B+

The MS work on their search in MOSS is surprisingly amazing.  While many companies introduce search replacements for MOSS, often times they are trying to fix poorly architect edsearch solutions with the MS offering.

The search in SP offers many options for optimal information architecture including best bets, search logging/analysis, search scopes, and much more.  It’s impressive to say the least.  The crawler is also very, very effective with filters to spider other forms of content.  They even introduced federated search to this offering, and it makes it all-the-more impressive.

The only reason this doesn’t get an “A” is the search results and placing search in the default interface isn’t worth the high grade although this can be edited by any capable designer.

Business Intelligence - C+

Default business intelligence in SP is less than stellar.  Although key performance indicators (KPI) are in the offering it is simply a graphical display of business data.  Corporations need far more robust diagramming and analysis tools for true business intelligence, and it has been a ripe area for other companies to pick up what is lacking in this feature.

Excel Services is an interesting addition to this as it allows the graphing and analysis of Excel data which is the most rudimentary of business database and business intelligence applications.  I look forward to this being beefed up in the next version of SP.

Web Content Management - B

Web Content Management or WCM was one of my specialties in my last business that shares the name of this site.  I chose WordPress as my tool of choice, but there are fantastic tools including Drupal, Dot Net Nuke, Graffiti CMS, and many others that do a fantastic job with each having their own strengths and weaknesses.

The SP offering of WCM has moved them from solely a intranet/extranet tool into the Internet realm.  WCM is also done differently than or web CMS’.  SP uses metadata in a single list to control what content is available to the page creator in SP Designer.  Creating page layouts then becomes foundational to all SP WCM. Even though pages can be created and metadata is more focused on then other tools such as WordPress or Drupal it still leaves much to be desired.

The workflow of creating metadata to then be used on any form of WCM pages I find quite restricting, and it ultimately slows down the contributor who understands nothing about the WCM architecture.  Inline editing of the content is also less than impressive.  The rich text editor is shaky at best, and the constant need for modal windows hinders usability for the contributor.  To edit the “backend” is only a list without a robust administration interface found in other popular CMS’.

SharePoint Designer and Interface - D

I’m putting both the default interface and SP Designer in the same category since they are so inter-related.  The default interface is clunky, navigation is abundant but poorly implemented, and the “obviousness” of the SP interface is less than obvious.  Also, in the interface the markup is absolutely horrendous.  Typical of ASP.NET controls it outputs horrendous markup.  This hinders accessibility, ease of branding, and even in the realm of SEO when using SP for public-facing sites.  The markup reminds me of what MS is all-to-often ridiculed for lack of web standards awareness.

SP Designer is the approved tool to brand the SP interface.  It’s built on the legacy of FrontPage, and it’s capability and interface is very reminiscent of FrontPage.  However, seemingly they are learning from their rich IDE in Visual Studio and allowed it to influence the designer options and functionality.  If it weren’t for the ability to open up the content database I would never, ever use the tool.  It is expensive, bulky, and there are free editors that make SP Designer look amateur.

The ability to do XSLT in a GUI manner is an interesting perspective, and it makes such a difficult topic somewhat attainable by a non-XML/XSLT expert.  Also, the workflow wizard is actually quite impressive.  Although it has limitations I was able to create a rather complex workflow with logic rather painlessly.

Looking Forward

I’m hoping that these deficiencies will be address and strengths strengthened in the next version of SharePoint.  I understand much of what I criticized is still “version 1.0,” and I expect it to mature.  SharePoint is a powerful platform, and I expect it to continue to dominate the ECM market for years to come.

With helpful and proven tips, techniques and processes you will be armed with the tools your organization needs to achieve the full benefit of SharePoint. By using real world examples (and mistakes), 3-time SharePoint MVP Bob Mixon will save you many hours of wasted time and disappointments.

Learn To:

• Build “Real World” Solutions using SharePoint out-of-box features, without Visual Studio.
• Create site and navigation structures that can be used by both the contributor and consumer.
• Build a Taxonomy and learn how to Apply it to SharePoint.
• Reduce, if not eliminate, Document Duplication.
• Configure Search so it Delivers Relevant Results.
• Understand security, how it works and techniques for correctly applying it.
• Automate business processes with workflow.
• Create a Request and Site Provisioning Solution.
• Utilize SharePoint to manage your implementation.
• Increase confidence in your ability to successfully create solutions that will be adopted by users.
• Understand key factors in making a build versus buy decision.
• More details…

Don’t miss this opportunity to learn how to do SharePoint right the first time - Next class starts 9/16.
Save $100 when you register before Friday, September 12, 2008

Register Here!

A Little Background

Internet Explorer has for a long time been the bane of web developers.  Every since they won the browser war over Netscape (nearing a decade ago now) with what were judged unethical and illegal means which led to a monopoly investigation.  That was settled and Microsoft allowed to continue.  Since then web designers have had to hack, glue, and curse IE due to its large lead on browser usage.

Internet Explorer 6 released in 2001 has been the infamous browser that just will not go away.  Grassroots movement such as Save the Developers have said “enough is enough” and want to see IE 6 erased from the technology landscape.  But even in 2008, seven years later, they still average around 25% of all browsers in usage today.  IE 7 was released and was a huge step forward in standards conformance, security, and compatibility.  It gave both designers and end users hope for the future of IE.

The Controversy Today

Recently when IE 8 was announced it boasted an impressive conformance to several web standards including CSS 2.1, DOM improvements, and even parts of HTML 5.  It also boasted that it passed the Acid 2 test which tested conformance to the CSS standard published by the W3C.  We were all excited until they made their second announcement.

The IE team, under intense political pressure, offered three modes of browsing in terms of web standards support.  It offered the following.

1. Quirks Mode - long standing behavior reminiscent of IE 6, and it was used when no DOCTYPE was specified.
2. IE 7 Mode - With a DOCTYPE it rendered according to IE 7’s standards support.
3. Standards Mode - with the inclusion of a META tag IE 8 would render in the strictest manner possible according to the DOCTYPE.

The community revolted in a way I’ve never seen before, and the IE team decided to have the standards mode be initiated by default with a DOCTYPE, and if the designer wanted IE 7 mode he had to use a META tag.  A major victory was won, and designers everywhere rejoiced and anticipated IE 8.

Compatibility Mode for Intranets

With the release of beta 2 of IE 8 they introduced compatibility mode with some interesting defaults.  They announced that IE 8 would, by default with a DOCTYPE, render all Internet (public) pages in the strictest manner possible per the aforementioned victory.  However, by default all intranet sites (with a URL such as http://moss) would render in compatibility mode.

It’s interesting that they mention SharePoint specifically in the blog post, because I’m sure this move was politically based as I have yet to see a web-based MS application with the political clout that SharePoint has in the enterprise.  This setting is configurable by Group Policy, but it is doubtful that many enterprises will take this as an action item.

Thankfully, the IE team has two META tags that can override all these compatibility view settings.  One emulates IE 7 rendering engine used most prominently for backwards public-facing sites, but there is also an emulate IE 8 META tag to force sites, even specified to render in compatibility mode.

So, Why Should I Care?

I believe there are two major ramifications of this.  The first effects the end user, and the second effects intranet developers.  The only people I can really see caring about this on the development side are those branding SharePoint.  Let’s talk about each.

First of all, the end user doesn’t have the final say whether or not a site is rendered in standards mode or not.  Now, probably most if not all end users could care less, but the addition of a button in the address bar that appears “broken” designates pages that may not be broken but actually rendering perfectly in standards mode but the end user could be drawn to change the behavior because it appears the page is broken.  So with a misleading option in the UI and overriding behavior given to developers over users is a concern.

Secondly, the concern is for those branding SharePoint or other intranet sites.  What scares me is that this decision was pushed by, for instance, the SharePoint team for its product.  I fear that this is indicative of how the next version of SharePoint will be crafted—around compatibility mode and not standards mode.  Any developer will tell you how horrendous the markup and CSS is for SharePoint out-of-the-box.  I was eagerly anticipating the SharePoint team learning from their mistakes in crafting the core styles and master pages by going to a much stricter standards-based site which makes it much easier to brand, far more accessible, and even faster loading.

What Should MS Do?

My hope is that the IE team will respond to such a critique as this as they did their first decision.  Here are some steps I’d encourage the team to take:

1. Render all sites, intra or internet sites in standards mode unless a META tag is present or lack of DOCTYPE.
2. The end user has control over whether or not the site truly displays one way or another.
3. Remove that confusing button in the IE UI which is a poor UX decision.

Will they respond as they did before?  I don’t know, but I can only hope they’ll see the negative ramifications of this for end users and developers alike.

Navigation is without a doubt one of the most essential elements of any interface, and as a result adequate time and thought is necessary to ensure your interface’s navigation is usable and comprehensive.  From the all important global navigation that stays the same throughout the site, to local navigation which changes based on the content of the page, to contextual navigation which exists within the content itself.  They all work together to form a powerful navigation experience.

• Information Architecture as an Extension of Web Design - features some good points on navigation and IA.
• Information Architecture Deliverables: Site/Navigation Structure - a good article on conveying your IA suggestions for navigation through deliverables.
• Essential Navigation Checklists for Web Design
• Where Am I? - a fantastic article on improving your navigation by highlighting context within your site’s IA.

Types of Navigation

There are typically a few types of navigation: global, local, contextual/supplemental.  Sometimes you may only need one, but other times you may need all three depending on the amount of content and the complexity of the interface.  Understanding how and when to use these different types

• Global navigation is a navigation structure that stays consistent through your application to provide familiarity and a good overview of your site’s content.
  • Global navigation design pattern
• Local navigation is a navigation structure contingent on the current content.
• Contextual navigation refers to navigation that is embedded within a site’s content to facilitate further browsing.  The best of example of this is Wikipedia which links content together inside the articles.

Breadcrumbs

Hansel and Gretel weren’t the only two who wanted to get back to where they started.  Breadcrumbs, when well thought out and implemented in moderation, can add a dynamic and usable element into your interface.

• Location, Path & Attribute Breadcrumbs - an excellent overview of approaches to breadcrumb navigation.
• Breadcrumb Navigation Increasingly Useful - Jakob Nielsen’s analysis of the effectiveness of breadcrumbs.
• Design Cop-out: Breadcrumbs - a very insightful article on the thought necessary to implement breadcrumbs and not using them to “cop-out” of other aspects of IA.

Pagination

Pagination is often an over-looked aspect of effective navigation architectures.  When combined with a thoughtful search architecture it will increase findability drastically.

• Pagination Gallery: Examples And Good Practices - an incredibly rich article outlining common mistakes and best practices.

Navigation Design Patterns

Design patterns are a great way to see how others are starting to standardize the way they approach certain aspects of design and their resulting interactions.  Most often, navigation mistakes are made, because the designer doesn’t take into account existing patterns that users may be familiar with.

• Patterns in Interaction Design - here is a great listing of patterns related to navigation styles including accordions, fly-outs, and much more.
• Elements of Design - an interesting gallery of creatively styled navigation.
• Information Architecture models: Guide to web site navigation patterns - an overview of different approaches to modeling the content in a navigation scheme.

The Argument

For a long time I was discouraged that I would never be a Cameron Moll, Eric Meyer, or work for Happy Cog. I thought since I couldn’t compete at that level it was better that I hang up the designing shoes. Well, I have since learned that being a good designer isn’t just about being a good designer, and I want to elaborate on what that means and its implications for the majority of “designers” out there.

I have learned that just because I’m not completely original designer with my layouts, methodology, etc that doesn’t mean I can’t be a “good designer.” While I might not be the most original I can work on how I discern good from bad and functional against un-functional in doing design work. In short, the average designer can be a good designer by honing their ability to be discerning on design choices and therefore be able to give educated opinions to clients and co-workers about best practices in the design world.

The Proof

To prove this we need to look no farther than this site! It is chocked full of resources, best practices, and galleries of exceptional designers/programmers doing exceptional things in order that we may learn from them. The fact that there are no shortages of design galleries on the Internet speaks to the market of inspiring other designers. That doesn’t mean we can blatantly copy them, but we can see how someone else approached a similar design problem and then mix and match to solve our individual design requirements.

The Conclusion

Just because most of us (including myself) might not be in the upper echelon of designers doesn’t mean that we can’t be talented in how we approach our design work. It’s true that being truly original is great, but for the rest of us we can stand on the shoulders of giants while paving our own way!

Defining Information Architecture (IA)

The Findability Flower

The Information Architecture Institute has the following definition to begin our study. They define IA as:

1. The structural design of shared information environments.
2. The art and science of organizing and labeling web sites, intranets, online communities and software to support usability and findability.
3. An emerging community of practice focused on bringing principles of design and architecture to the digital landscape.

Information architects, from this working definition, play an important role in not only ensuring the usability and utility of information but it also goes to the level of discovering the optimal way to do physical layouts inside applications. From beginning to end, IA has an important role our design work.

Relation to Other Disciplines

Findability truly is the center of all applications we design. If information is not findable, then the value-added proposition from our applications doesn’t amount to much. Information Architecture is an important component to achieving maximum findability in our applications, but it has a very symbiotic relationship to other disciples in designing interfaces.

• Interaction designers/user experience gurus are very interested in how our applications are actually used by the end user and therefore take a keen interest in how we label, describe, and layout our information.
• Usability experts love IA for ensuring that our applications actually have information structured in such a way that makes it both usable and provides utility for the user.\
• Graphic designers need IA before ever applying CSS, DHTML, or any other element to add to the aesthetic and function of the interface.
• Business Analysts/Executives are concerned with ensuring that the product they sell and/or information they provide is understood by the target market. They see a tight relationship between IA and an application’s return on investment (ROI).

The list can continue, but it’s very apparent that many different stakeholders have a keen interest in IA. Because of this, information architects straddle an important line between the business objectives, customer needs, and application designers. They truly serve as the “glue” that makes projects stand or fall.

Understanding Information-Seeking Behavior

Before we continue with the various aspects of IA we first need to clarify how users actually seek information. If we can’t understand this vital aspect than all our IA will amount to a waste in time and money.

Too many designers design interfaces on the premise that search takes a linear form. In other words, the user comes to our application, searches/browses in a simple manner, finds their information, and leaves. Truth is, seeking information is an involved process. Think of how we search for information on sites: Sometimes we attempt to navigate the site, other times we go straight to search, but usually it’s a combination of both. We need to keep this in perspective when designing our information architectures.

A Diagram of Typical Information Seeking Behavior

Here are some important articles outlining information seeking behavior.

• The Design of Browsing and Berrypicking Techniques for the Online Search Interface - this article was created in 1989, but it remains a phenomenal introduction to information seeking behavior to which the author likens it to “berrypicking.”
• Designing for Information Foragers: A Behavioral Model for Information Seeking on the World Wide Web - a great introduction to the concepts inside understanding information seeking behavior.
• Information Seeking on the Web - a great overview of information seeking behavior as specific to web interfaces with its unique needs and concerns.
• Information Seeking Behavior in New Searching Environments - search is an important aspect in understanding this topic, and this is a great primer on its complexities.

I have created a wireframe for MOSS 2007. It is based on the master page that comes out-of-the-box with SharePoint 2007. If you want to make it WSS-specific, all you really have to do is remove the “My Site” and “My Links” in the top-right navigation bar.

The two formats available are a Visio template (.vst) and a PDF. I made use of the GUUUI Visio stencil kit in Visio 2007, but it should open fine in 2003. If you don’t have Visio you can use the PDF.

• SharePoint Wireframe (Visio)
• SharePoint Wireframe (PDF)