Information Architecture
Why can nobody find anything on your site?
Findability is whether someone can locate what they came for. Discoverability is whether they find what they didn’t know to ask for. Two different problems, two different fixes.
Tell us what people can’t find, and we’ll tell you whether it’s a findability problem or a discoverability one. They’re not the same thing, and they don’t get fixed the same way.
Or text 562-726-2287. No form marathon, no discovery call.
2 problems
Findability and discoverability
4 parts
Model, taxonomy, nav, governance
5 people
The test that finds the real one
▸ Q3 Initiative (old)
▸ Misc / Uncategorized
▸ New Folder (2)
▸ IT Resources
▸ see Marketing? ▸ Get started
Pricing · Book a call
▸ Solutions
By need · By industry
▸ Support
Docs · Contact · Status
Start here
Two different problems get called the same thing, and they have different fixes.
Findability is whether someone can locate what they came for. They know the thing exists. They want the returns policy, the pricing, the phone number. When it fails, it's a labelling and navigation problem: the thing is there, under a name nobody would search for, three levels deeper than anyone will go.
Discoverability is whether someone finds what they didn't know to ask for. They came for one thing and never learn you do the other four. When it fails, it's a structure and cross-linking problem, and it costs you more, because nobody complains about it. They just leave believing you do less than you do.
The test that separates them: ask five people to find one specific page. If they all get there slowly, that's findability. If they all get there and none of them noticed the three related things on the way, that's discoverability.
Sound familiar
Your visitors can't find things, and neither can your own team.
All the content exists, and people still can't find it. Adding more pages hasn't helped.
Your navigation follows the org chart, not the way a customer actually looks for things.
Search on your own site returns nothing useful for terms you obviously cover.
Two teams built the same page under different names, so the same thing gets built again a third time.
Every team added a section, nobody owns the whole, and the strategy lives in one person's head.
What worked when you were five people is breaking now that you're bigger, and nobody can describe the structure in one sentence.
None of this means your content is bad. It means the site grew by accretion, nobody owns the whole, and your org chart is not a taxonomy. Here's the version where people find what they came for.
The version where people find things
Someone comes for one thing and leaves knowing you do the other four, because the structure finally matches how people actually look.
Findable and discoverable, both. The menu comes from a content model instead of the org chart. Categories use the words your audience uses, not the ones your team invented. And there's a written rule for who adds what and where new things go, so the structure you paid for is still standing a year from now, instead of quietly decaying while everyone blames the CMS.
The distinction that matters
Findability and discoverability, side by side.
They get called the same thing, so they get the same fix, which is why the fix doesn't work. One is about locating what you came for. The other is about meeting what you didn't know to ask for. The failure is in a different place each time.
| Findability | Discoverability | |
|---|---|---|
| The question it answers | Can someone locate what they came for? | Can they find what they didn't know to ask for? |
| What's actually broken | Labelling and navigation | Structure and cross-linking |
| Who notices | The visitor, who knows the thing exists | Nobody complains, they just leave |
| The five-person test | Everyone gets there, but slowly | Everyone gets there and misses the three related things |
The four parts
What information architecture actually is.
Four things, and none of them is a sitemap diagram.
- A content model. The shapes your content actually has: what a service is, what a case study is, what fields each one carries, and how they relate. It's the part that decides whether "every case study in healthcare, most recent first" is a query or a page somebody maintains by hand.
- A taxonomy. The words you use for categories, chosen because your audience uses them rather than because your team does. A controlled vocabulary, so the same concept isn't filed under three names by three people.
- Navigation. What appears in the menu, what doesn't, and in what order. It's downstream of the content model and the taxonomy, not a substitute for them.
- Governance. Who can add a category, who decides where new things go, and what happens when nobody decides. Without it, structure decays within a year of launch and everyone blames the CMS.
What we do
What we actually do.
- Talk to the people who use the site, not only to the people who own it.
- Model the content, so structure comes from what the content is rather than from what the menu can fit.
- Build the taxonomy from the words your audience actually uses, tested rather than assumed.
- Design the navigation from the model, and say plainly what doesn't belong in it.
- Write the governance rules down, because that's what makes it survive contact with a busy quarter.
Before you hire us
When information architecture isn't your problem.
A small site with a copy problem
If the site is small and the real problem is the writing, this isn't your issue. Ten pages that nobody understands is a messaging problem, not a structure one.
Structure you don't need yet
If you have no content problem yet, don't buy structure ahead of need. Come back when the sprawl is real, not before.
A new sitemap diagram
Information architecture isn't a picture of the menu. Rearrange the navigation without a content model and a taxonomy underneath, and you've just moved the problem around.
What it costs
What information architecture costs.
Content strategy engagements start at $10,000.
Information architecture work is scoped per project, because the cost tracks how much content there is and how many people have to agree. Ongoing work runs $5,000 to $15,000 a month. Full detail is on the pricing page.
Related
If it's a different problem.
Content strategy
The whole picture. This is one spoke of it.
Content audit
If the problem is volume rather than structure.
CMS migration
A migration is the cheapest moment to fix structure.
Questions we get
What people usually ask.
Findability is whether someone can locate what they came for. Discoverability is whether they find what they didn't know to ask for. One is a labelling and navigation problem. The other is a structure and cross-linking problem. Different problems, different fixes.
No. Navigation is downstream of two things: a content model and a taxonomy. Redraw the menu without those underneath and you've just moved the problem. The menu is the last decision, not the first.
When the site is small and the real problem is the copy, that's a messaging problem, not a structure one. And if you have no content problem yet, don't buy structure ahead of need. Come back when the sprawl is real.
Usually not on its own. If search can't surface terms you obviously cover, the content isn't modelled and the taxonomy is missing. Site search leans on your structure. Fix the structure and search starts working. Adding more pages hasn't helped, and it won't.
Content strategy engagements start at $10,000, and information architecture is scoped per project, because cost tracks how much content there is and how many people have to agree. Ongoing work runs $5,000 to $15,000 a month. Detail is on the pricing page.
Close
You'll know why people can't find things, and what to change.
Whether it's findability or discoverability, you'll know which problem you have and what fixing it involves.
Findability and discoverability are different problems. We tell you which one you've got.