Re: hypermedia affordances
Mike Sokolov scripsit: > personally I'm happy to be a king's follower in this instance. I > don't mind coinage of new terms as needed, but to avoid jargon it's > preferable to repurpose an old one that's relevant. How about > "links" or "references"? We are so used to them that we don't easily see that "links" and "references" are just as much jargon as "affordances". Our field has been repurposing terms from its beginnings, perhaps starting with "computer", which used to mean someone whose job it was to compute things, with or without an instrument. Yanks and Brits collided in the early days over "memory": the latter preferred the less misleading term "store", but it didn't last. I laughed almost twenty years ago when I got a letter from the principal of my daughter's school talking about the newfangled Internet: he mentioned that he knew some of us parents were "expert browsers". A natural mistake, really: isn't a browser an animal that eats shoots and leaves (no commas)? But not everyone thinks our terminological buccaneering a Good Thing. Primo Levi in his essay collection _Other People's Trades_ talks about his mystification in trying to decipher the manuals that came with his shiny new Macintosh: The computer was delivered to me accompanied by a profusion of manuals. I tried to study them before touching the keys, and I felt lost. It seemed to me that although they were apparently written in Italian, there were in an unknown language; indeed in a mocking and misleading language in which well-known words like "open," "close," and "quit" are used in unusual ways. [...] How much better it would have been to invent a decisively new terminology for these new things. And he also speaks of the un-helpfulness of the glossaries in those same manuals, which proceed "in an opposite direction to that of common dictionaries; these [glossaries] define familiar terms by having recourse to abstruse terms, and the effect is devastating." In short, the question of "new terms or old?" is a matter of taste and common practice in a field, and "affordance" belongs to a field related to ours but not the same. -- Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your John Cowan ear. However, I would suggest you wash your firstname.lastname@example.org hands thoroughly before going to the toilet. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --gadicath
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format