Initial commit

2025-11-30 08:38:26 +08:00
commit 41d9f6b189
304 changed files with 98322 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/skills/information-architecture/resources/evaluators/rubric_information_architecture.json
+++ b/skills/information-architecture/resources/evaluators/rubric_information_architecture.json
@@ -0,0 +1,211 @@
+{
+  "criteria": [
+    {
+      "name": "User Research Validation",
+      "description": "IA decisions based on user research (card sorting, tree testing, interviews), not assumptions or opinions.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "No user research. IA based on stakeholder opinions, org chart, or assumptions about users.",
+        "3": "Some user research (5-10 participants) but limited scope or informal methods.",
+        "5": "Rigorous user research: card sorting (15-30 users), tree testing (20-50 users), validated with real users before implementation."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Mental Model Alignment",
+      "description": "Navigation matches user mental models and vocabulary, not internal company jargon or org structure.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "Labels use internal jargon, org chart structure, or vague terms ('Solutions', 'Services'). Users confused.",
+        "3": "Mix of user-friendly and internal terms. Some alignment with user mental models.",
+        "5": "Labels match user vocabulary from research. Task-based or user-goal oriented. Clear mental model alignment."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Taxonomy Quality (MECE)",
+      "description": "Categories are mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive. Clear, non-overlapping structure.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "Categories overlap significantly. Gaps in coverage. Items fit multiple places or nowhere.",
+        "3": "Mostly MECE but some overlaps or gaps. Most items have clear home.",
+        "5": "Perfect MECE: every item has exactly one primary home, no gaps, no overlaps. Faceted where appropriate."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Navigation Depth & Breadth",
+      "description": "Optimal depth (3-4 levels) and breadth (5-9 items per level). Not too flat or too deep.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "Too flat (>12 top-level items, overwhelming) OR too deep (>5 levels, users lost). Poor balance.",
+        "3": "Acceptable depth/breadth but some levels have <3 or >12 items. Room for optimization.",
+        "5": "Optimal: 3-4 levels deep, 5-9 items per level. Balanced hierarchy, manageable choices at each level."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Information Scent",
+      "description": "Clear labels, trigger words, descriptive breadcrumbs guide users. Strong predictive cues.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "Vague labels ('Resources', 'Other'), no breadcrumbs, users guess. Weak scent.",
+        "3": "Some clear labels but inconsistent. Breadcrumbs present but could be more descriptive.",
+        "5": "Strong scent: specific labels, user trigger words, descriptive breadcrumbs, preview text. Users click confidently."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Findability Metrics",
+      "description": "Measurable findability: time to find, success rate, search vs browse balance.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "No metrics tracked. Unknown if users can find content.",
+        "3": "Some metrics tracked (analytics, basic usability) but incomplete or informal.",
+        "5": "Comprehensive metrics: tree test ≥70% success, time to find <30 sec (simple) / <2 min (complex), 40-60% search/browse balance."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Tree Testing Validation",
+      "description": "Navigation structure validated with tree testing before implementation.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "No tree testing. Built navigation without validation.",
+        "3": "Informal tree testing (5-10 users) or partial testing (only some tasks).",
+        "5": "Rigorous tree testing: 20-50 users, 8-12 tasks, ≥70% success rate, <1.5× directness, iterated based on results."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Multiple Access Paths",
+      "description": "Users can find content via navigation, search, filters, tags, related links. Supports different strategies.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "Only one access method (browse-only or search-only). Single path to content.",
+        "3": "Two access methods (browse + search) but limited. No filters, tags, or related links.",
+        "5": "Multiple paths: browse, search, faceted filters, tags, breadcrumbs, related links. Supports searchers and browsers."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Scalability & Evolution",
+      "description": "Structure designed for growth. Handles 10× content without breaking. Governance plan exists.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "Structure works for current size but breaks at scale. No governance. No plan for growth.",
+        "3": "Some consideration for scale. Ad-hoc governance. Will need significant rework as content grows.",
+        "5": "Designed for scale: faceted for large sets, versioned taxonomy, governance framework (roles, processes, metrics), evolution plan."
+      }
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Progressive Disclosure",
+      "description": "Starts simple, reveals complexity on-demand. Hub-and-spoke, collapsed sections, tiered navigation.",
+      "scale": {
+        "1": "Everything visible at once (overwhelming) OR everything hidden (users can't discover).",
+        "3": "Some progressive disclosure but inconsistent or incomplete.",
+        "5": "Well-designed progressive disclosure: hub-and-spoke for guides, collapsed sections for long nav, contextual secondary nav."
+      }
+    }
+  ],
+  "guidance_by_type": {
+    "E-commerce Navigation": {
+      "target_score": 4.2,
+      "key_criteria": ["Taxonomy Quality (MECE)", "Multiple Access Paths", "Findability Metrics"],
+      "common_pitfalls": ["Too many top-level categories", "No faceted filters", "Search vs browse not balanced"],
+      "specific_guidance": "Use faceted navigation (Category × Price × Brand × Rating). Card sort with 20+ customers to understand grouping preferences. Tree test with 'Find product under $X in Y category' tasks. Track search vs browse ratio (target 40-60% each). Provide multiple paths: browse categories, search, filter, sort."
+    },
+    "Documentation IA": {
+      "target_score": 4.0,
+      "key_criteria": ["Mental Model Alignment", "Progressive Disclosure", "Information Scent"],
+      "common_pitfalls": ["Feature-based (not task-based)", "Too deep nesting", "No 'Getting Started' hub"],
+      "specific_guidance": "Structure by user tasks ('How do I...?') not features. Hub-and-spoke: 'Getting Started' hub with 5-7 clear entry points. 3-4 levels max. Breadcrumbs show path. Related links for discovery. Search with code snippet results. Tree test with 'Find how to do X' tasks (≥80% success)."
+    },
+    "Content-Heavy Website": {
+      "target_score": 3.8,
+      "key_criteria": ["User Research Validation", "Taxonomy Quality (MECE)", "Scalability & Evolution"],
+      "common_pitfalls": ["No content audit", "Overlapping categories", "No governance"],
+      "specific_guidance": "Start with content audit: inventory all content, identify duplicates/gaps. Open card sort (20-30 users) to discover categories. MECE taxonomy design. Tree test (30-50 users, 10-12 tasks). Plan for 3× content growth. Establish governance: taxonomy owner, quarterly reviews, tag moderation."
+    },
+    "SaaS Product Navigation": {
+      "target_score": 4.0,
+      "key_criteria": ["Mental Model Alignment", "Navigation Depth & Breadth", "Information Scent"],
+      "common_pitfalls": ["Internal jargon", "Org chart structure", "'Modules' label"],
+      "specific_guidance": "Card sort with active users (not stakeholders). Rename internal terms to user language: 'Widgets' → 'Reports', 'Modules' → 'Features'. Task-based labels: 'Create Report', 'Share Dashboard'. Flat structure (2-3 levels). Contextual help. Tree test with 'Where would you do X?' tasks. Iterate until ≥75% success."
+    },
+    "Intranet / Knowledge Base": {
+      "target_score": 3.5,
+      "key_criteria": ["Findability Metrics", "Multiple Access Paths", "Scalability & Evolution"],
+      "common_pitfalls": ["Outdated content", "Weak search", "No metadata schema"],
+      "specific_guidance": "Content audit: remove 40%+ outdated, merge duplicates. Closed card sort with employees to validate categories. Hybrid approach: browse by department + robust search + best bets for common queries. Metadata schema: author, last updated, audience, content type, tags. Governance: content owners responsible for freshness."
+      }
+  },
+  "guidance_by_complexity": {
+    "Simple (<100 items, clear structure)": {
+      "target_score": 3.5,
+      "focus_areas": ["Mental Model Alignment", "Navigation Depth & Breadth", "Information Scent"],
+      "acceptable_shortcuts": ["Informal card sort (10 users)", "Simple tree test (10 users, 5 tasks)", "Basic analytics"],
+      "specific_guidance": "Flat structure (1-2 levels). Simple categories. Informal user research acceptable (10 users). Basic tree test (5 tasks, ≥70% success). Monitor with analytics (bounce rate, time on site)."
+    },
+    "Standard (100-1000 items, moderate complexity)": {
+      "target_score": 4.0,
+      "focus_areas": ["User Research Validation", "Taxonomy Quality (MECE)", "Tree Testing Validation", "Findability Metrics"],
+      "acceptable_shortcuts": ["Card sort with 15 users (not 30)", "Tree test with 20 users (not 50)"],
+      "specific_guidance": "Card sort (15-20 users). MECE taxonomy (3-4 levels, 5-9 items per level). Tree test (20-30 users, 8-10 tasks, ≥70% success, ≤1.5× directness). Multiple access paths (browse + search). Track findability metrics (time to find, success rate, search/browse ratio)."
+    },
+    "Complex (>1000 items, high complexity)": {
+      "target_score": 4.5,
+      "focus_areas": ["All criteria", "Rigorous validation", "Comprehensive metrics"],
+      "acceptable_shortcuts": ["None - full rigor required"],
+      "specific_guidance": "Full content audit. Card sort (30 users). Faceted navigation (orthogonal facets). MECE taxonomy + controlled vocabulary. Tree test (50 users, 12 tasks, ≥75% success). Multiple access paths (browse, search, filters, tags, related links). Comprehensive metrics dashboard. Governance framework (taxonomy owner, quarterly reviews, versioning, deprecation process)."
+    }
+  },
+  "common_failure_modes": [
+    {
+      "name": "Org Chart Navigation",
+      "symptom": "Navigation structured by company departments (Sales, Marketing, Engineering) not user tasks or mental models.",
+      "detection": "Tree test shows low success (<50%). Users say 'I don't know what department handles this.' Card sort reveals users group differently than org structure.",
+      "fix": "Restructure by user tasks or goals. Card sort with users to discover natural groupings. Rename categories to user-facing labels: 'For Developers' not 'Engineering Department'."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "No User Research",
+      "symptom": "IA designed by stakeholders or designers based on opinions, not user data. 'I think users will understand...'",
+      "detection": "No card sort, tree test, or user interviews conducted. Decisions justified by 'makes sense to me' not data.",
+      "fix": "Conduct card sorting (20-30 users) to understand mental models. Tree test (20-50 users) to validate proposed structure before building. Iterate based on results."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Too Deep Hierarchy",
+      "symptom": "Navigation 5-6+ levels deep. Users need 6+ clicks to reach content. Users get lost, high abandonment.",
+      "detection": "Tree test shows low directness (>2.5×). Analytics shows high bounce rate on intermediate pages. Users complain 'can't find anything'.",
+      "fix": "Flatten structure: 3-4 levels max. Add faceted filters or search to shortcut hierarchy. Use progressive disclosure (hub-and-spoke) instead of deep nesting."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Vague Labels",
+      "symptom": "Labels like 'Resources', 'Solutions', 'Services' — users don't know what's inside. Weak information scent.",
+      "detection": "Tree test shows users clicking multiple categories before finding content (low directness). Card sort shows users rename these categories to more specific terms.",
+      "fix": "Use specific, descriptive labels. 'Code Samples' not 'Resources'. 'API Documentation' not 'Solutions'. Test labels with tree testing. Match user vocabulary from card sort."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Non-MECE Taxonomy",
+      "symptom": "Items fit multiple categories OR don't fit anywhere. Overlap and gaps.",
+      "detection": "Content audit shows many items marked 'belongs in multiple places'. Users confused where to look. Card sort shows weak clustering (<50% agreement).",
+      "fix": "Redesign taxonomy to be mutually exclusive (no overlap) and collectively exhaustive (no gaps). Use faceted classification for items with multiple attributes. One primary location + facets/tags for cross-category access."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "No Tree Testing",
+      "symptom": "Built navigation structure without validating users can find content. Launch reveals users struggle.",
+      "detection": "Live site shows low task success, high bounce rate, users complain 'can't find X'. No pre-launch validation done.",
+      "fix": "Always tree test before building. 20-50 users, 8-12 tasks. Target ≥70% success, ≤1.5× directness. Iterate until targets met. Saves rework post-launch."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Single Access Path",
+      "symptom": "Only browse (no search) OR only search (no browse). Users with different strategies struggle.",
+      "detection": "Analytics shows 90%+ use search (navigation broken) OR 90%+ browse (search broken). Users complain 'I can't browse' or 'search doesn't work'.",
+      "fix": "Provide multiple paths: browse (navigation), search, faceted filters, tags, breadcrumbs, related links. Support both 'searchers' (know what they want) and 'browsers' (exploring)."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "Doesn't Scale",
+      "symptom": "Structure works for 100 items but breaks at 1000. Categories become massive, overwhelming.",
+      "detection": "One category has 60%+ of items. Users complain 'too much content'. Search becomes only viable path.",
+      "fix": "Design for scale upfront. Use faceted navigation for large sets. Split large categories into subcategories. Plan for 10× growth. Establish governance to evolve taxonomy as content grows."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "No Governance",
+      "symptom": "Taxonomy degrades over time. Content in 'Other', empty categories, inconsistent tagging.",
+      "detection": ">10% content in 'Other' or 'Uncategorized'. Empty categories exist. User-generated tags have synonyms, typos, noise.",
+      "fix": "Establish governance framework: taxonomy owner, content owners, quarterly reviews. Monitor metrics (% in 'Other', empty categories, tag quality). Process for adding/removing categories, merging tags."
+    },
+    {
+      "name": "No Progressive Disclosure",
+      "symptom": "Everything visible at once (overwhelming mega-menu) OR everything hidden (users can't discover).",
+      "detection": "Users complain 'too much information' (overwhelming) OR 'I didn't know that existed' (hidden). Low engagement with deep content.",
+      "fix": "Progressive disclosure: hub-and-spoke for guides (overview → details), collapsed sections in navigation (expand on click), tiered navigation (primary always visible, secondary contextual)."
+    }
+  ],
+  "minimum_standard": 3.5,
+  "target_score": 4.0,
+  "excellence_threshold": 4.5
+}
--- a/skills/information-architecture/resources/methodology.md
+++ b/skills/information-architecture/resources/methodology.md
@@ -0,0 +1,494 @@
+# Information Architecture: Advanced Methodology
+
+This document covers advanced techniques for card sorting analysis, taxonomy design, navigation optimization, and findability improvement.
+
+## Table of Contents
+1. [Card Sorting Analysis](#1-card-sorting-analysis)
+2. [Taxonomy Design Principles](#2-taxonomy-design-principles)
+3. [Navigation Depth & Breadth Optimization](#3-navigation-depth--breadth-optimization)
+4. [Information Scent & Findability](#4-information-scent--findability)
+5. [Advanced Topics](#5-advanced-topics)
+
+---
+
+## 1. Card Sorting Analysis
+
+### Analyzing Card Sort Results
+
+**Goal**: Extract meaningful patterns from user groupings
+
+### Similarity Matrix
+
+**What it is**: Shows how often users grouped two cards together
+
+**How to calculate**:
+- For each pair of cards, count how many users put them in the same group
+- Express as percentage: (# users who grouped together) / (total users)
+
+**Example**:
+
+|  | Sign Up | First Login | Quick Start | Reports | Dashboards |
+|--|---------|-------------|-------------|---------|------------|
+| Sign Up | - | 85% | 90% | 15% | 10% |
+| First Login | 85% | - | 88% | 12% | 8% |
+| Quick Start | 90% | 88% | - | 10% | 12% |
+| Reports | 15% | 12% | 10% | - | 75% |
+| Dashboards | 10% | 8% | 12% | 75% | - |
+
+**Interpretation**:
+- **Strong clustering** (>70%): "Sign Up", "First Login", "Quick Start" belong together → "Getting Started" category
+- **Strong clustering** (75%): "Reports" and "Dashboards" belong together → "Analytics" category
+- **Weak links** (<20%): "Getting Started" and "Analytics" are distinct categories
+
+### Dendrogram (Hierarchical Clustering)
+
+**What it is**: Tree diagram showing hierarchical relationships
+
+**How to create**:
+1. Start with each card as its own cluster
+2. Iteratively merge closest clusters (highest similarity)
+3. Continue until all cards in one cluster
+
+**Interpreting dendrograms**:
+- **Short branches**: High agreement (merge early)
+- **Long branches**: Low agreement (merge late)
+- **Clusters**: Cut tree at appropriate height to identify categories
+
+**Example**:
+```
+                        All Cards
+                            |
+        ____________________+_____________________
+        |                                         |
+    Getting Started                          Features
+        |                                         |
+    ____+____                              _____+_____
+    |        |                            |           |
+  Sign Up  First Login              Analytics    Settings
+                                        |
+                                    ____+____
+                                    |        |
+                                 Reports  Dashboards
+```
+
+**Insight**: Users see clear distinction between "Getting Started" (onboarding tasks) and "Features" (ongoing use).
+
+### Agreement Score (Consensus)
+
+**What it is**: How much users agree on groupings
+
+**Calculation methods**:
+
+1. **Category agreement**: % of users who created similar category
+   - Example: 18/20 users (90%) created "Getting Started" category
+
+2. **Pairwise agreement**: Average similarity across all card pairs
+   - Formula: Sum(all pairwise similarities) / Number of pairs
+   - High score (>70%) = strong consensus
+   - Low score (<50%) = weak consensus, need refinement
+
+**When consensus is low**:
+- Cards may be ambiguous (clarify labels)
+- Users have different mental models (consider multiple navigation paths)
+- Category is too broad (split into subcategories)
+
+### Outlier Cards
+
+**What they are**: Cards that don't fit anywhere consistently
+
+**How to identify**: Low similarity with all other cards (<30% with any card)
+
+**Common reasons**:
+- Card label is unclear → Rewrite card
+- Content doesn't belong in product → Remove
+- Content is unique → Create standalone category or utility link
+
+**Example**: "Billing" card — 15 users put it in "Settings", 3 in "Account", 2 didn't categorize it
+- **Action**: Clarify if "Billing" is settings (configuration) or account (transactions)
+
+---
+
+## 2. Taxonomy Design Principles
+
+### Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive (MECE)
+
+**Principle**: Categories don't overlap AND cover all content
+
+**Mutually exclusive**: Each item belongs to exactly ONE category
+- **Bad**: "Products" and "Best Sellers" (best sellers are also products — overlap)
+- **Good**: "Products" (all) and "Featured" (separate facet or tag)
+
+**Collectively exhaustive**: Every item has a category
+- **Bad**: Categories: "Electronics", "Clothing" — but you also sell "Books" (gap)
+- **Good**: Add "Books" OR create "Other" catch-all
+
+**Testing MECE**:
+1. List all content items
+2. Try to categorize each
+3. If item fits >1 category → not mutually exclusive
+4. If item fits 0 categories → not collectively exhaustive
+
+### Polyhierarchy vs. Faceted Classification
+
+**Polyhierarchy**: Item can live in multiple places in hierarchy
+- **Example**: "iPhone case" could be in:
+  - Electronics > Accessories > Phone Accessories
+  - Gifts > Under $50 > Tech Gifts
+- **Pro**: Matches multiple user mental models
+- **Con**: Confusing (where is "canonical" location?), hard to maintain
+
+**Faceted classification**: Item has ONE location, multiple orthogonal attributes
+- **Example**: "iPhone case" is in Electronics (primary category)
+  - Facet 1: Category = Electronics
+  - Facet 2: Price = Under $50
+  - Facet 3: Use Case = Gifts
+- **Pro**: Clear, flexible filtering, scalable
+- **Con**: Requires good facet design
+
+**When to use each**:
+- **Polyhierarchy**: Small content sets (<500 items), clear user need for multiple paths
+- **Faceted**: Large content sets (>500 items), many attributes, users need flexible filtering
+
+### Controlled Vocabulary vs. Folksonomy
+
+**Controlled vocabulary**: Preset tags, curated by admins
+- **Example**: "Authentication", "API", "Database" (exact tags, no variations)
+- **Pro**: Consistency, findability, no duplication ("Auth" vs "Authentication")
+- **Con**: Requires maintenance, may miss user terminology
+
+**Folksonomy**: User-generated tags, anyone can create
+- **Example**: Users tag articles with whatever terms they want
+- **Pro**: Emergent, captures user language, low maintenance
+- **Con**: Inconsistent, duplicates, noise ("Auth", "Authentication", "auth", "Authn")
+
+**Hybrid approach** (recommended):
+- Controlled vocabulary for core categories and facets
+- Folksonomy for supplementary tags (with moderation)
+- Periodically review folksonomy tags → promote common ones to controlled vocabulary
+
+**Tag moderation**:
+- Merge synonyms: "Auth" → "Authentication"
+- Remove noise: "asdf", "test"
+- Suggest tags: When user types "auth", suggest "Authentication"
+
+### Category Size & Balance
+
+**Guideline**: Aim for balanced category sizes (no one category dominates)
+
+**Red flags**:
+- **One huge category**: "Other" with 60% of items → need better taxonomy
+- **Many tiny categories**: 20 categories, each with 2-5 items → over-categorization, consolidate
+- **Unbalanced tree**: One branch 5 levels deep, others 2 levels → inconsistent complexity
+
+**Target distribution**:
+- Top-level categories: 5-9 categories
+- Each category: Roughly equal # of items (within 2× of each other)
+- If one category much larger: Split into subcategories
+
+**Example**: E-commerce with 1000 products
+- **Bad**: Electronics (600), Clothing (300), Books (80), Other (20)
+- **Good**: Electronics (250), Clothing (250), Books (250), Home & Garden (250)
+
+### Taxonomy Evolution
+
+**Principle**: Taxonomies grow and change — design for evolution
+
+**Strategies**:
+1. **Leave room for growth**: Don't create 10 top-level categories if you'll need 15 next year
+2. **Use "Other" temporarily**: New category emerging but not big enough yet? Use "Other" until critical mass
+3. **Versioning**: Date taxonomy versions, track changes over time
+4. **Deprecation**: Don't delete categories immediately — mark "deprecated", redirect users, then remove after transition period
+
+**Example**: Software product adding ML features
+- **Today**: 20 ML-related articles scattered across "Advanced", "API", "Tutorials"
+- **Transition**: Create "Machine Learning" subcategory under "Advanced"
+- **Future**: 100 ML articles → Promote "Machine Learning" to top-level category
+
+---
+
+## 3. Navigation Depth & Breadth Optimization
+
+### Hick's Law & Choice Overload
+
+**Hick's Law**: Decision time increases logarithmically with number of choices
+
+**Formula**: Time = a + b × log₂(n + 1)
+- More choices → longer time to decide
+
+**Implications for IA**:
+- **5-9 items per level**: Sweet spot (Miller's "7±2")
+- **>12 items**: Users feel overwhelmed, scan inefficiently
+- **<3 items**: Feels unnecessarily nested
+
+**Example**:
+- 100 items, flat (1 level, 100 choices): Overwhelming
+- 100 items, 2 levels (10 × 10): Manageable
+- 100 items, 4 levels (3 × 3 × 3 × 4): Too many clicks
+
+**Optimal for 100 items**: 3 levels (5 × 5 × 4) or (7 × 7 × 2)
+
+### The "3-Click Rule" Myth
+
+**Myth**: Users abandon if content requires >3 clicks
+
+**Reality**: Users tolerate clicks if:
+1. **Progress is clear**: Breadcrumbs, page titles show "getting closer"
+2. **Information scent is strong**: Each click brings them closer to goal (see Section 4)
+3. **No dead ends**: Every click leads somewhere useful
+
+**Research** (UIE study): Users successfully completed tasks requiring 5-12 clicks when navigation was clear
+
+**Guideline**: Minimize clicks, but prioritize clarity over absolute number
+- **Good**: 5 clear, purposeful clicks
+- **Bad**: 2 clicks but confusing labels, users backtrack
+
+### Breadth-First vs. Depth-First Navigation
+
+**Breadth-first** (shallow, many top-level options):
+- **Structure**: 10-15 top-level categories, 2-3 levels deep
+- **Best for**: Browsing, exploration, users know general area but not exact item
+- **Example**: News sites, e-commerce homepages
+
+**Depth-first** (narrow, few top-level but deep):
+- **Structure**: 3-5 top-level categories, 4-6 levels deep
+- **Best for**: Specific lookup, expert users, hierarchical domains
+- **Example**: Technical documentation, academic libraries
+
+**Hybrid** (recommended for most):
+- **Structure**: 5-7 top-level categories, 3-4 levels deep
+- **Supplement with**: Search, filters, related links to "shortcut" across hierarchy
+
+### Progressive Disclosure
+
+**Principle**: Start simple, reveal complexity on-demand
+
+**Techniques**:
+
+1. **Hub-and-spoke**: Overview page → Detailed pages
+   - Hub: "Getting Started" with 5 clear entry points
+   - Spokes: Detailed guides linked from hub
+
+2. **Accordion/Collapse**: Hide detail until user expands
+   - Navigation: Show categories, hide subcategories until expanded
+   - Content: Show summary, expand for full text
+
+3. **Tiered navigation**: Primary nav (always visible) + secondary nav (contextual)
+   - Primary: "Products", "Support", "About"
+   - Secondary (when in "Products"): "Electronics", "Clothing", "Books"
+
+4. **"More..." links**: Show top N items, hide rest until "Show more" clicked
+   - Navigation: Top 5 categories visible, "+3 more" link expands
+
+**Anti-pattern**: Mega-menus showing everything at once (overwhelming)
+
+---
+
+## 4. Information Scent & Findability
+
+### Information Scent
+
+**Definition**: Cues that indicate whether a path will lead to desired information
+
+**Strong scent**: Clear labels, descriptive headings, users click confidently
+**Weak scent**: Vague labels, users guess, backtrack often
+
+**Example**:
+- **Weak scent**: "Solutions" → What's in there? (generic)
+- **Strong scent**: "Developer API Documentation" → Clear what's inside
+
+**Optimizing information scent**:
+
+1. **Specific labels** (not generic):
+   - Bad: "Resources" → Too vague
+   - Good: "Code Samples", "Video Tutorials", "White Papers" → Specific
+
+2. **Trigger words** (match user vocabulary):
+   - Card sort reveals users say "How do I..." → Label category "How-To Guides"
+   - Users search "pricing" → Ensure "Pricing" in nav, not "Plans" or "Subscription"
+
+3. **Descriptive breadcrumbs**:
+   - Bad: "Home > Section 1 > Page 3" → No meaning
+   - Good: "Home > Developer Docs > API Reference" → Clear path
+
+4. **Preview text**: Show snippet of content under link
+   - Navigation item: "API Reference" + "Complete list of endpoints and parameters"
+
+### Findability Metrics
+
+**Key metrics to track**:
+
+1. **Time to find**: How long to locate content?
+   - **Target**: <30 sec for simple tasks, <2 min for complex
+   - **Measurement**: Task completion time in usability tests
+
+2. **Success rate**: % of users who find content?
+   - **Target**: ≥70% (tree test), ≥80% (live site with search)
+   - **Measurement**: Tree test results, task success in usability tests
+
+3. **Search vs. browse**: Do users search or navigate?
+   - **Good**: 40-60% browse, 40-60% search (both work)
+   - **Bad**: 90% search (navigation broken), 90% browse (search broken)
+   - **Measurement**: Analytics (search usage %, nav click-through)
+
+4. **Search refinement rate**: % of searches that are refined?
+   - **Target**: <30% (users find on first search)
+   - **Bad**: >50% (users search, refine, search again → poor results)
+   - **Measurement**: Analytics (queries per session)
+
+5. **Bounce rate by entry point**: % leaving immediately?
+   - **Target**: <40% for landing pages
+   - **Bad**: >60% (users don't find what they expected)
+   - **Measurement**: Analytics (bounce rate by page)
+
+6. **Navigation abandonment**: % who start navigating, then leave?
+   - **Target**: <20%
+   - **Bad**: >40% (users get lost, give up)
+   - **Measurement**: Analytics (drop-off in navigation funnels)
+
+### Search vs. Navigation Trade-offs
+
+**When search is preferred**:
+- Large content sets (>5000 items)
+- Users know exactly what they want ("lookup" mode)
+- Diverse content types (hard to categorize consistently)
+
+**When navigation is preferred**:
+- Smaller content sets (<500 items)
+- Users browsing, exploring ("discovery" mode)
+- Hierarchical domains (clear parent-child relationships)
+
+**Best practice**: Offer BOTH
+- Navigation for discovery, context, exploration
+- Search for lookup, speed, known-item finding
+
+**Optimizing search**:
+- **Autocomplete**: Suggest as user types
+- **Filters**: Narrow results by category, date, type
+- **Best bets**: Featured results for common queries
+- **Zero-results page**: Suggest alternatives, show popular content
+
+**Optimizing navigation**:
+- **Clear labels**: Match user vocabulary (card sort insights)
+- **Faceted filters**: Browse + filter combination
+- **Related links**: Help users discover adjacent content
+- **Breadcrumbs**: Show path, enable backtracking
+
+---
+
+## 5. Advanced Topics
+
+### Mental Models & User Research
+
+**Mental model**: User's internal representation of how system works
+
+**Why it matters**: Navigation should match user's mental model, not company's org chart
+
+**Researching mental models**:
+
+1. **Card sorting**: Reveals how users group/label content
+2. **User interviews**: Ask "How would you organize this?" "What would you call this?"
+3. **Tree testing**: Validates if proposed structure matches mental model
+4. **First-click testing**: Where do users expect to find X?
+
+**Common mismatches**:
+- **Company thinks**: "Features" (technical view)
+- **Users think**: "What can I do?" (task view)
+- **Solution**: Rename to task-based labels ("Create Report", "Share Dashboard")
+
+**Example**: SaaS product
+- **Internal (wrong)**: "Modules" → "Synergistic Solutions" → "Widget Management"
+- **User mental model (right)**: "Features" → "Reporting" → "Custom Reports"
+
+### Cross-Cultural IA
+
+**Challenge**: Different cultures have different categorization preferences
+
+**Examples**:
+- **Alphabetical**: Works for Latin scripts, not ideographic (Chinese, Japanese)
+- **Color coding**: Red = danger (Western), Red = luck (Chinese)
+- **Icons**: Mailbox icon = email (US), doesn't translate (many countries have different mailbox designs)
+
+**Strategies**:
+1. **Localization testing**: Card sort with target culture users
+2. **Avoid culturally-specific metaphors**: "Home run", "touchdown" (US sports)
+3. **Simple, universal labels**: "Home", "Search", "Help" (widely understood)
+4. **Icons + text**: Don't rely on icons alone
+
+### IA Governance
+
+**Problem**: Taxonomy degrades over time without maintenance
+
+**Governance framework**:
+
+1. **Roles**:
+   - **Content owner**: Publishes content, assigns categories/tags
+   - **Taxonomy owner**: Maintains category structure, adds/removes categories
+   - **IA steward**: Monitors usage, recommends improvements
+
+2. **Processes**:
+   - **Quarterly review**: Check taxonomy usage, identify issues
+   - **Change request**: How to propose new categories or restructure
+   - **Deprecation**: Process for removing outdated categories
+   - **Tag moderation**: Review user-generated tags, merge synonyms
+
+3. **Metrics to monitor**:
+   - % content in "Other" or "Uncategorized" (should be <5%)
+   - Empty categories (no content) — remove or consolidate
+   - Oversized categories (>50% of content) — split into subcategories
+
+4. **Tools**:
+   - CMS with taxonomy management
+   - Analytics to track usage
+   - Automated alerts (e.g., "Category X has no content")
+
+### Personalization & Dynamic IA
+
+**Concept**: Navigation adapts to user
+
+**Approaches**:
+
+1. **Audience-based**: Show different nav for different user types
+   - "For Developers", "For Marketers", "For Executives"
+
+2. **History-based**: Prioritize recently visited or frequently used
+   - "Recently Viewed", "Your Favorites"
+
+3. **Context-based**: Show nav relevant to current task
+   - "Related Articles", "Next Steps"
+
+4. **Adaptive search**: Results ranked by user's past behavior
+
+**Caution**: Don't over-personalize
+- Users need consistency to build mental model
+- Personalization should augment, not replace, standard navigation
+
+### IA for Voice & AI Interfaces
+
+**Challenge**: Traditional visual hierarchy doesn't work for voice
+
+**Strategies**:
+
+1. **Flat structure**: No deep nesting (can't show menu)
+2. **Natural language categories**: "Where can I find information about X?" vs. "Navigate to Category > Subcategory"
+3. **Conversational**: "What would you like to do?" vs. "Select option 1, 2, or 3"
+4. **Context-aware**: Remember user's previous question, continue conversation
+
+**Example**:
+- **Web**: Home > Products > Electronics > Phones
+- **Voice**: "Show me phones" → "Here are our top phone options..."
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+**Card sorting** reveals user mental models through similarity matrices, dendrograms, and consensus scores. Outliers indicate unclear content.
+
+**Taxonomy design** follows MECE principle (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive). Use faceted classification for scale, controlled vocabulary for consistency, and plan for evolution.
+
+**Navigation optimization** balances breadth (many choices) vs. depth (many clicks). Optimal: 5-9 items per level, 3-4 levels deep. Progressive disclosure reduces initial complexity.
+
+**Information scent** guides users with clear labels, trigger words, and descriptive breadcrumbs. Track findability metrics: time to find (<30 sec), success rate (≥70%), search vs. browse balance (40-60% each).
+
+**Advanced techniques** include mental model research (card sort, interviews), cross-cultural adaptation, governance frameworks, personalization, and voice interface design.
+
+**The goal**: Users can predict where information lives and find it quickly, regardless of access method.
--- a/skills/information-architecture/resources/template.md
+++ b/skills/information-architecture/resources/template.md
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+# Information Architecture Templates
+
+Quick-start templates for content audits, card sorting, sitemaps, tree testing, and taxonomy design.
+
+---
+
+## Template 1: Content Audit
+
+**When to use**: Before redesigning navigation, need inventory of existing content
+
+### Content Audit Spreadsheet Template
+
+| URL/ID | Title | Content Type | Category | Metadata | Last Updated | Owner | Status | Action | Notes |
+|--------|-------|--------------|----------|----------|--------------|-------|--------|--------|-------|
+| /about | About Us | Page | Company | meta-desc, img | 2024-01-15 | Marketing | Keep | Update copy | Outdated team bios |
+| /api/auth | Authentication API | Docs | Developer | tags: auth, jwt | 2024-06-01 | Eng | Keep | None | Current |
+| /blog/old-post | Old Post | Article | Blog | tags: news | 2020-03-10 | Marketing | **Remove** | Archive | 4 years old, irrelevant |
+| /products/widget-a | Widget A | Product | Products | price, sku | 2024-05-20 | Sales | Keep | Recategorize | Should be in "Tools" not "Products" |
+| /help/faq-duplicate | FAQ | Help | Support | tags: help | 2023-12-01 | Support | **Merge** | With /help/faq | Duplicate content |
+
+### Audit Analysis Template
+
+**Total Content Items**: [Count]
+
+**By Type**:
+- Pages: [Count] ([%])
+- Docs: [Count] ([%])
+- Articles: [Count] ([%])
+- Products: [Count] ([%])
+- Other: [Count] ([%])
+
+**By Status**:
+- Keep as-is: [Count] ([%])
+- Update needed: [Count] ([%])
+- Recategorize: [Count] ([%])
+- Merge: [Count] ([%])
+- Remove/Archive: [Count] ([%])
+
+**Quality Issues**:
+- Outdated (>2 years): [Count] items
+- Missing metadata: [Count] items
+- Duplicates: [Count] items
+- Broken links: [Count] items
+- Inconsistent labeling: [Count] items
+
+**Current Performance** (from analytics):
+- Most visited pages: [List top 5]
+- Least visited pages: [List bottom 5]
+- High bounce rate pages (>60%): [List]
+- Search queries with no results: [List top 10]
+- Common navigation paths: [List top 3]
+
+**Key Findings**:
+1. [Finding 1: e.g., "40% of content is outdated"]
+2. [Finding 2: e.g., "Users search for 'pricing' but it's buried 4 levels deep"]
+3. [Finding 3: e.g., "15% of content is duplicated across sections"]
+
+**Recommendations**:
+1. [Recommendation 1]
+2. [Recommendation 2]
+3. [Recommendation 3]
+
+---
+
+## Template 2: Card Sorting Study
+
+**When to use**: Understanding user mental models for content organization
+
+### Card Sorting Plan Template
+
+**Study Type**: [Open / Closed / Hybrid]
+
+**Research Question**: "How do [target users] naturally group and label [content type]?"
+
+**Participants**:
+- Target: [Number, e.g., "20 users"]
+- Recruitment criteria: [e.g., "Active customers who use product 2+ times/week"]
+- Incentive: [e.g., "$25 gift card"]
+
+**Cards** ([Number] total):
+1. [Card 1 name/title]
+2. [Card 2 name/title]
+3. [Card 3 name/title]
+...
+[List all cards — aim for 30-60 cards, representative sample of content]
+
+**Pre-Defined Categories** (for Closed/Hybrid only):
+1. [Category 1]
+2. [Category 2]
+3. [Category 3]
+...
+
+**Tool**: [e.g., "OptimalSort", "UserZoom", "Miro"]
+
+**Instructions for Participants**:
+
+```
+You'll see [X] cards representing different [content/features/topics] on our [website/app].
+
+Your task:
+1. Read each card
+2. Group cards that belong together
+3. Name each group you create
+4. You can create as many groups as you need (typically 5-10 groups work well)
+
+There are no right or wrong answers. We want to understand how YOU think about organizing this content.
+
+Time estimate: 15-20 minutes
+```
+
+### Card Sort Analysis Template
+
+**Participation**:
+- Completed: [X] / [Y] participants ([Z]% completion rate)
+- Average time: [X minutes]
+
+**Category Analysis**:
+
+| Category Label | # Users Who Created It | % Agreement | Cards Most Often Included | Alternative Labels Used |
+|----------------|------------------------|-------------|---------------------------|------------------------|
+| Getting Started | 18 / 20 | 90% | "Sign Up", "First Login", "Quick Start" | "Onboarding", "Setup" |
+| Reports | 16 / 20 | 80% | "Analytics", "Dashboard", "Metrics" | "Insights", "Data" |
+| Settings | 19 / 20 | 95% | "Profile", "Preferences", "Account" | "Configuration", "Options" |
+
+**Dendogram Insights** (hierarchical clustering):
+- **Strong clusters** (>70% agreement): [List categories with high consensus]
+- **Weak clusters** (<50% agreement): [List categories with low consensus — these need clarification]
+- **Outlier cards**: [Cards that don't fit anywhere — may need reconsideration]
+
+**Labeling Insights**:
+- **Most common labels**: [e.g., "Help" (15 users), "Support" (12 users), "Assistance" (3 users)]
+- **Terminology conflicts**: [e.g., "Users say 'Reports' but we call them 'Analytics'"]
+- **Jargon to avoid**: [e.g., "Synergistic Solutions" — 0 users used this term]
+
+**Key Findings**:
+1. [Finding 1: e.g., "Users group by task, not by product feature"]
+2. [Finding 2: e.g., "'Settings' is universally understood (95% agreement)"]
+3. [Finding 3: e.g., "'Modules' label confuses users — split between 'Features' and 'Tools'"]
+
+**Recommended Categories** (based on card sort):
+1. [Category 1] — [Brief description]
+2. [Category 2] — [Brief description]
+3. [Category 3] — [Brief description]
+...
+
+---
+
+## Template 3: Sitemap & Navigation Structure
+
+**When to use**: Documenting information hierarchy after card sort analysis
+
+### Sitemap Template
+
+```
+Homepage
+├── [Category 1]
+│   ├── [Subcategory 1.1]
+│   │   ├── [Page 1.1.1]
+│   │   └── [Page 1.1.2]
+│   ├── [Subcategory 1.2]
+│   │   ├── [Page 1.2.1]
+│   │   └── [Page 1.2.2]
+│   └── [Subcategory 1.3]
+│
+├── [Category 2]
+│   ├── [Subcategory 2.1]
+│   ├── [Subcategory 2.2]
+│   └── [Subcategory 2.3]
+│
+├── [Category 3]
+│   ├── [Page 3.1]
+│   ├── [Page 3.2]
+│   └── [Page 3.3]
+│
+└── [Category 4]
+    ├── [Subcategory 4.1]
+    │   ├── [Page 4.1.1]
+    │   └── [Page 4.1.2]
+    └── [Subcategory 4.2]
+```
+
+### Example: E-commerce Sitemap
+
+```
+Homepage
+├── Shop by Category (Electronics, Clothing, Home & Garden)
+├── Shop by Occasion (Daily Essentials, Special Occasions, Gifts)
+├── Deals & Promotions (Today's Deals, Clearance, Bundles)
+└── Support (Help Center, Track Order, Returns, Contact Us)
+```
+
+### Navigation Specification Template
+
+**Primary Navigation** (Top-level categories):
+- [Category 1]: [Description, user goal, target audience]
+- [Category 2]: [Description, user goal, target audience]
+- [Category 3]: [Description, user goal, target audience]
+
+**Secondary Navigation** (Utility links):
+- [Link 1]: [e.g., "Search", "Cart", "Account"]
+- [Link 2]: [e.g., "Help", "Contact"]
+
+**Faceted Filters** (for browse/search):
+- **Facet 1**: [Name] — Options: [Option A, Option B, Option C]
+- **Facet 2**: [Name] — Options: [Option A, Option B, Option C]
+- **Facet 3**: [Name] — Options: [Option A, Option B, Option C]
+
+**Breadcrumbs**: [Show path from homepage to current page]
+- Example: `Home > [Category] > [Subcategory] > [Current Page]`
+
+**Related Links**: [Contextual links on each page]
+- "Related Articles"
+- "You Might Also Like"
+- "Next Steps"
+
+**Search**:
+- Placement: [e.g., "Global header, every page"]
+- Features: [e.g., "Autocomplete, filters, recent searches"]
+- Best bets: [Featured results for common queries]
+
+---
+
+## Template 4: Tree Testing Script
+
+**When to use**: Validating navigation structure before building
+
+### Tree Test Plan Template
+
+**Research Question**: "Can users find [X] in our proposed navigation structure?"
+
+**Participants**: [20-50 users matching target audience]
+
+**Navigation Tree** (text-only structure):
+
+```
+Home
+  Getting Started
+    Sign Up
+    First Login
+    Quick Start Guide
+  Features
+    Reports
+    Dashboards
+    Alerts
+  Settings
+    Profile
+    Preferences
+    Billing
+  Support
+    Help Center
+    Contact Us
+    FAQ
+```
+
+**Tasks** (8-12 tasks typical):
+
+1. **Task 1**: "You want to [user goal]. Where would you find [content]?"
+   - **Correct destination**: [Path, e.g., "Features > Reports"]
+   - **Why this task**: [e.g., "Most common user action"]
+
+2. **Task 2**: "You need to [user goal]. Where would you look?"
+   - **Correct destination**: [Path]
+   - **Why this task**: [Rationale]
+
+3. **Task 3**: [Task description]
+   - **Correct destination**: [Path]
+   - **Why this task**: [Rationale]
+
+[Continue for 8-12 tasks covering key content/features]
+
+### Tree Test Results Template
+
+**Overall Performance**:
+- **Success rate**: [X]% (Target: ≥70%)
+- **Directness**: [X]× optimal path (Target: ≤1.5×)
+- **Average time**: [X] seconds
+
+**Task-Level Results**:
+
+| Task | Success Rate | Directness | Avg Time | Top Incorrect Paths | Notes |
+|------|--------------|------------|----------|---------------------|-------|
+| Task 1 | 85% | 1.2× | 12 sec | None | Good |
+| Task 2 | 45% | 2.5× | 35 sec | "Settings > Profile" (30%), "Support > Help" (25%) | **PROBLEM**: Users confused by label |
+| Task 3 | 75% | 1.4× | 18 sec | "Features > Dashboards" (20%) | Minor issue |
+
+**Problem Areas**:
+
+| Issue | Evidence | Impact | Recommendation |
+|-------|----------|--------|----------------|
+| "Reports" label unclear | Task 2 only 45% success, users looked in "Dashboards" and "Settings" | High | Rename to "Analytics" or merge with "Dashboards" |
+| "Settings" too broad | Tasks 4 & 5 both low success (50%, 55%) | Medium | Split into "Account Settings" and "App Preferences" |
+| Deep nesting in "Support" | Task 7: 65% success, 2.8× directness | Medium | Flatten: move "FAQ" to top level |
+
+**Recommended Changes**:
+1. [Change 1: e.g., "Rename 'Reports' to 'Analytics'"]
+2. [Change 2: e.g., "Split 'Settings' into 'Account' and 'Preferences'"]
+3. [Change 3: e.g., "Move 'FAQ' from Support > Help Center > FAQ to top-level Support > FAQ"]
+
+**Next Steps**:
+- [ ] Implement recommended changes
+- [ ] Re-run tree test on updated structure
+- [ ] Proceed to wireframes once success rate ≥70% on all tasks
+
+---
+
+## Template 5: Taxonomy & Metadata Schema
+
+**When to use**: Designing classification systems, tags, and content attributes
+
+### Taxonomy Design Template
+
+**Content Type**: [e.g., "Product", "Article", "Documentation Page"]
+
+**Primary Taxonomy** (Hierarchical categories):
+```
+[Top-Level Category 1]
+├── [Sub-category 1.1]
+├── [Sub-category 1.2]
+└── [Sub-category 1.3]
+
+[Top-Level Category 2]
+├── [Sub-category 2.1]
+└── [Sub-category 2.2]
+
+[Top-Level Category 3]
+```
+
+**Facets** (Orthogonal dimensions for filtering):
+- **Facet 1**: [Name] — Values: [Value A, Value B, Value C]
+- **Facet 2**: [Name] — Values: [Value A, Value B, Value C]
+- **Facet 3**: [Name] — Values: [Value A, Value B, Value C]
+
+**Tags** (Flexible, user-defined or preset):
+- Preset tags: [List of controlled vocabulary tags]
+- User-generated tags: [Yes/No]
+- Tag moderation: [Yes/No, process]
+
+**Metadata Schema**:
+
+| Field | Type | Required | Values/Format | Purpose |
+|-------|------|----------|---------------|---------|
+| Title | Text | Yes | Plain text, max 60 chars | Display in nav, SEO |
+| Description | Text | No | Plain text, max 160 chars | SEO meta description |
+| Category | Select | Yes | [List of categories] | Primary classification |
+| Tags | Multi-select | No | [Controlled vocabulary] | Cross-category findability |
+| Author | Text | Yes | Name or ID | Attribution, filtering |
+| Last Updated | Date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD | Freshness indicator |
+| Audience | Select | Yes | [e.g., "Beginner", "Advanced"] | Personalization |
+| Content Type | Select | Yes | [e.g., "Tutorial", "Reference", "FAQ"] | Filtering, display |
+| Status | Select | Yes | [e.g., "Draft", "Published", "Archived"] | Governance |
+
+### Example: Documentation Taxonomy
+
+**Primary Taxonomy**:
+```
+Getting Started
+├── Installation
+├── Configuration
+└── First App
+
+Guides
+├── How-To Guides
+├── Tutorials
+└── Best Practices
+
+Reference
+├── API Documentation
+├── CLI Reference
+└── Configuration Files
+
+Troubleshooting
+├── Common Issues
+├── Error Messages
+└── FAQ
+```
+
+**Facets**:
+- **Product Version**: v1.0, v2.0, v3.0
+- **Difficulty Level**: Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced
+- **Time to Complete**: <10 min, 10-30 min, >30 min
+
+**Metadata** (for each doc page):
+- Title, Description, Category, Tags, Author, Last Updated, Audience, Content Type, Product Version, Difficulty, Est. Time
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference: When to Use Each Template
+
+| Template | Use Case | Deliverable |
+|----------|----------|-------------|
+| **Content Audit** | Before redesign, need inventory | Spreadsheet with all content, status, recommendations |
+| **Card Sorting** | Don't know how users categorize content | Category labels, groupings, terminology insights |
+| **Sitemap** | After card sort, document structure | Visual hierarchy diagram |
+| **Tree Testing** | Validate navigation before building | Success rates, problem areas, iteration recommendations |
+| **Taxonomy & Metadata** | Design classification system | Taxonomy structure, metadata schema, controlled vocabulary |