Glossary examples - Clarification

18 Sep 2007 - 12:52pm
6 years ago
4 replies
2382 reads
arielv
2007

I should clarify that this is a web glossary.

On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Ariel van Spronsen wrote:

> Greetings all:
>
> I am working on a simple glossary for a client, and want to do some
> due diligence in generating ideas for it. I thought I'd check with
> the list to see if you have examples of good glossaries that you
> like and that work well.
>
> Currently the glossary (small, approximately 100 terms) is broken
> into context of use categories, with an alphabetical list following
> each header. I would like to introduce a model that doesn't
> require scrolling down to find the appropriate category, but not
> obscure the total terms available. My initial instinct is to use
> filters: Category A, Category B, Category C, All terms. We don't
> have the dev time to build in search functionality.
>
> I know this is a very rough description, and though specific ideas
> are welcome, mainly I just want to increase my mental store of good
> glossary examples - so anything you like will be helpful.
>
> Thanks much,
> Ariel van Spronsen

Comments

19 Sep 2007 - 2:46am
Welie, Martijn van
2005

I think a Glossary should be indexed using the characters of the
alphabet. Clicking on a letter shows all terms with that letter. For
example: http://java.sun.com/docs/glossary.html

However, I wonder if a Glossary like this is really the optimal
solution. Usually a user is on particular page where the term occurs.
Wouldn't it be better to explain the term using a mouseover tooltip kind
of solution?

A Glossary section is more useful when you want to look up words out of
context, like you would use a dictionary...or if the users do not really
know how to spell the term so they can search or browse the list of
terms.

Martijn

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Ariel van Spronsen
Sent: dinsdag 18 september 2007 19:52
To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Glossary examples - Clarification

I should clarify that this is a web glossary.

On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Ariel van Spronsen wrote:

> Greetings all:
>
> I am working on a simple glossary for a client, and want to do some
> due diligence in generating ideas for it. I thought I'd check with
> the list to see if you have examples of good glossaries that you
> like and that work well.
>
> Currently the glossary (small, approximately 100 terms) is broken
> into context of use categories, with an alphabetical list following
> each header. I would like to introduce a model that doesn't
> require scrolling down to find the appropriate category, but not
> obscure the total terms available. My initial instinct is to use
> filters: Category A, Category B, Category C, All terms. We don't
> have the dev time to build in search functionality.
>
> I know this is a very rough description, and though specific ideas
> are welcome, mainly I just want to increase my mental store of good
> glossary examples - so anything you like will be helpful.
>
> Thanks much,
> Ariel van Spronsen

________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
Questions .................. list at ixda.org
Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

19 Sep 2007 - 2:56am
Jarod Tang
2007

On more link, ;-)
http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/

If it cross referenced, and adopt some way like cmap , it will be more
friendly to user.

Cheers
-- Jarod

On 9/19/07, Welie, Martijn van <martijn.van.welie at satama.com> wrote:
>
> I think a Glossary should be indexed using the characters of the
> alphabet. Clicking on a letter shows all terms with that letter. For
> example: http://java.sun.com/docs/glossary.html
>
> However, I wonder if a Glossary like this is really the optimal
> solution. Usually a user is on particular page where the term occurs.
> Wouldn't it be better to explain the term using a mouseover tooltip kind
> of solution?
>
> A Glossary section is more useful when you want to look up words out of
> context, like you would use a dictionary...or if the users do not really
> know how to spell the term so they can search or browse the list of
> terms.
>
> Martijn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
> Ariel van Spronsen
> Sent: dinsdag 18 september 2007 19:52
> To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Glossary examples - Clarification
>
> I should clarify that this is a web glossary.
>
> On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Ariel van Spronsen wrote:
>
> > Greetings all:
> >
> > I am working on a simple glossary for a client, and want to do some
> > due diligence in generating ideas for it. I thought I'd check with
> > the list to see if you have examples of good glossaries that you
> > like and that work well.
> >
> > Currently the glossary (small, approximately 100 terms) is broken
> > into context of use categories, with an alphabetical list following
> > each header. I would like to introduce a model that doesn't
> > require scrolling down to find the appropriate category, but not
> > obscure the total terms available. My initial instinct is to use
> > filters: Category A, Category B, Category C, All terms. We don't
> > have the dev time to build in search functionality.
> >
> > I know this is a very rough description, and though specific ideas
> > are welcome, mainly I just want to increase my mental store of good
> > glossary examples - so anything you like will be helpful.
> >
> > Thanks much,
> > Ariel van Spronsen
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

--
IxD for better life style.

http://jarodtang.blogspot.com

19 Sep 2007 - 2:28pm
bminihan
2007

Jarod, your example illustrates an important feature for online glossaries and index pages: Letters with no content should not be clickable. I have designed 2 glossaries in the past, and the favored one embedded tooltips x-refed to glossary definitions inside content, as well as the appendix "glossary page" as discussed here (designed in a training guide for a web app with a lot of ambiguous terms).

- Bryan
http://www.bryanminihan.com

---- Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:
> On more link, ;-)
> http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/
>
> If it cross referenced, and adopt some way like cmap , it will be more
> friendly to user.
>
>
> Cheers
> -- Jarod
>
> On 9/19/07, Welie, Martijn van <martijn.van.welie at satama.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think a Glossary should be indexed using the characters of the
> > alphabet. Clicking on a letter shows all terms with that letter. For
> > example: http://java.sun.com/docs/glossary.html
> >
> > However, I wonder if a Glossary like this is really the optimal
> > solution. Usually a user is on particular page where the term occurs.
> > Wouldn't it be better to explain the term using a mouseover tooltip kind
> > of solution?
> >
> > A Glossary section is more useful when you want to look up words out of
> > context, like you would use a dictionary...or if the users do not really
> > know how to spell the term so they can search or browse the list of
> > terms.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> > [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
> > Ariel van Spronsen
> > Sent: dinsdag 18 september 2007 19:52
> > To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> > Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Glossary examples - Clarification
> >
> > I should clarify that this is a web glossary.
> >
> > On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Ariel van Spronsen wrote:
> >
> > > Greetings all:
> > >
> > > I am working on a simple glossary for a client, and want to do some
> > > due diligence in generating ideas for it. I thought I'd check with
> > > the list to see if you have examples of good glossaries that you
> > > like and that work well.
> > >
> > > Currently the glossary (small, approximately 100 terms) is broken
> > > into context of use categories, with an alphabetical list following
> > > each header. I would like to introduce a model that doesn't
> > > require scrolling down to find the appropriate category, but not
> > > obscure the total terms available. My initial instinct is to use
> > > filters: Category A, Category B, Category C, All terms. We don't
> > > have the dev time to build in search functionality.
> > >
> > > I know this is a very rough description, and though specific ideas
> > > are welcome, mainly I just want to increase my mental store of good
> > > glossary examples - so anything you like will be helpful.
> > >
> > > Thanks much,
> > > Ariel van Spronsen
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> IxD for better life style.
>
> http://jarodtang.blogspot.com
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

--

20 Sep 2007 - 5:52am
Bruce Esrig
2006

I'd like to see a glossary interface that has a pool in which the user can
accumulate related definitions that need to be reviewed together.

For example, terms might accumulate through a Recently-Viewed feature that
accumulates glossary entries as the user traverses see and see-also links.
("See" is for a preferred term. "See also" is for a related term. "Compare"
is for a similar term that might be preferred in some contexts. "Contrast"
is for a significantly different term that might be preferred in some
contexts.)

Your suggestion of tagging terms by their domain is a useful refinement on
the usual see and see-also constructs. The best mechanism would allow
simple see and see-also cross references, but also support an enhancement
that indicates the sense that is supported by the target definition, as in
the following example.

Consider an entry like this:

product

1. An item offered for sale by a business. Contrast with service (business).
2. The tangible result of an implementation effort. See also download
(software-development).

If the user visits the terms "product" and "service", then their
Recently-Visited pool would contain both terms. In that pool, they could
roll up the entries to show just the term, or unroll any entry to show its
senses. In an unrolled entry, any sense could be shown or hidden. An entry
could be deleted from the Recently-Visited pool.

For deeper background, you can think in terms of publishing a glossary from
XML to HTML. A single XML source contains the glossary entries, and the
applicable entries are selected for use in each of a number of works.

To represent glossary entries in XML, there's some solid work in the OASIS
DITA 1.1 language specification
(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/24891/ditaref-type.pdf).
The basic principle is that there should be one glossentry per sense.
However, in presenting the glossary, multiple senses may appear under a
single heading as follows.

AC
1. Air conditioning
2. Alternating current

This is represented in XML as:

<glossentry id="ac-air">
<glossterm>AC</glossterm>
<glossdef>Air conditioning</glossdef>
</glossentry>

<glossentry id="ac-electric">
<glossterm>AC</glossterm>
<glossdef>Alternating current</glossdef>
</glossentry>

Notice that the convention for the ID of a multiple-sense term is to give
the term and a qualifier, such as the domain in which that sense is the
unique meaning of the term. If the glossary is being shared, this can
happen with terms that are not abbreviations, such as the term "product",
which may need different definitions depending on the context.

Best wishes,

Bruce Esrig

Additional features:

At 03:28 PM 9/19/2007, bjminihan at nc.rr.com wrote:
>... Letters with no content should not be clickable.

>embedded tooltips x-refed to glossary definitions inside content

>[an] appendix "glossary page" as discussed here (designed in a training
>guide for a web app with a lot of ambiguous terms).
>
> - Bryan
>http://www.bryanminihan.com
>
>
>---- Jarod Tang <jarod.tang at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On more link, ;-)
> > http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/
> >
> > If it cross referenced, and adopt some way like cmap , it will be
> more friendly to user.
> >
> > >
> > > On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:57 AM, Ariel van Spronsen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greetings all:
> > > >
> > > > I am working on a simple glossary for a client, and want to do some
> > > > due diligence in generating ideas for it. I thought I'd check with
> > > > the list to see if you have examples of good glossaries that you
> > > > like and that work well.
> > > >
> > > > Currently the glossary (small, approximately 100 terms) is broken
> > > > into context of use categories, with an alphabetical list following
> > > > each header. I would like to introduce a model that doesn't
> > > > require scrolling down to find the appropriate category, but not
> > > > obscure the total terms available. My initial instinct is to use
> > > > filters: Category A, Category B, Category C, All terms. We don't
> > > > have the dev time to build in search functionality.
> > > >
> > > > I know this is a very rough description, and though specific ideas
> > > > are welcome, mainly I just want to increase my mental store of good
> > > > glossary examples - so anything you like will be helpful.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks much,
> > > > Ariel van Spronsen

Syndicate content Get the feed