We designed this paper as a brief survey of the state of
practice in using anchors in hypertexts. While our main objective is provide
a taxonomy of anchor properties, it is far from an exhaustive survey.
To show a wide range of sites that exemplified these properties we used
a decision tree:
Did the site exemplify an anchor property in an manner
that would be useful to explore? Granted, this is very
subjective. We chose both websites that were applauded for their
design (Winners of web awards such as Brand
Channel [5]) and derided sites (featured on webpagesthatsuck.com
[119] such as the Royal Institute
for Deaf and Blind Children [58]). This allowed us to
examine why some uses of anchors were considered effective and why
others were not.
If no, exclude. If yes, ask:
Did the site exemplify a different use of
an anchor property than works already surveyed? Note that
this quickly became the self-limiting factor. We may not have chosen
the website that best instantiated an anchor property, only the
first that caught our attention. For example, we chose FirstGov
[18] and thus did not include any other efferent websites that
only used the standard
anchor properties.
This also proved more of a limiting factor for efferent sites.
Many efferent sites used only slight variations on anchors (a different
highlight color, a different type of graphic) but the same general
principle.
Nearly all of the aesthetic sites that we looked at used anchor
properties in unique ways.
If yes, include. If no, ask:
Did the site achieve a different effect with the same
property? For example, Reagan
Library [47 and What We Will [66]use the same 360 anchor, but for the former uses it to explore an
alien landscape, while the latter uses it to ground the action both
in place and space. The Saturn[60]
picture map plays with the relationship between ordinary objects
and car properties while the Fuddrucker's
[19] cheeseburger map is more of a random pairing of words and
parts.
If yes, include.
A thorough survey of how many sites used what types of anchor
properties was far beyond the scope of this paper. However, this paper
could be used as a basis for such a survey--perhaps deliminated by site
purposes (How many car sales sites use what anchor properties?).
Classifying as efferent or aesthetic
We broke sites into two main categories in a broad attempt
to examine how anchor properties may help or hinder the site's intended
purpose. We used Rosenblatt's descriptions of efferent
and aesthetic reading purposes to divide sites [110]. An efferent
site's purpose is to serve information as quickly and as effectively as
possible. An aesthetic site's purpose is to get readers to explore. This
does not mean that readers can't read an efferent site aesthetically,
and enjoy and explore. Nor does it mean that readers can't use an aesthetic
site to gain information. This is not an absolute categorization but two
poles on the continuum.
While these categories are not mutually exclusive, we found
that certain anchor properties lend themselves more to efferent reading
than to aesthetic reading. For example, Saturn
[60] site users may find exploring the maps
useful in dreaming about a new car, and then use the text
and menu links to find the car prices.
Criteria
Efferent
Aesthetic
Was the site or work identified as literary? We
counted this self-identification as either listed in the Electronic
Literature Directory [84], published in a literary online
journal, or described by the author or an academic paper as literary.
X
If not, was the site an official home site
for an organization or institution? Note that we classified
Poems That Go Archives [54]and the Whitney
Idea Line [67]as efferent because we examined the home site
that explained the works of art rather than the art itself--like
looking at a museum wall instead of the paintings.
X
If not, did the site tell something: was the
site primarily providing information? Note that we categorized
War Games--Catch a Landmine [40] as
literary even though it primarily provides information. This is listed
in the Electronic
Literature Directory and published in
Beehive, a literary zine.
X
If not, did the site sell something: was the site primarily
promoting or selling a service or items? Note that while
Saturn [60] has some aesthetic elements
in its map, the site's primary purpose is to sell cars, so we categorized
this as efferent.
X
Of our 67 sites, 40 were on the aesthetic side of the spectrum
and 27 were on the efferent side.
Determining property types
Property types are not clearly delineated as one or the
other, but lie on a spectrum. For the most part, the property type could
be readily identified. Menus, for example, were in lists either at the
top, bottom, or side of a node. However, there are always questions about
classification. For example, when is a menu a menu and not a map? When
do anchoral words at the end of a poem become part of the poem itself
or become a menu? To show some of these issues, we placed some works in
grey boxes between the anchor property types in the anchor property summary
tables.
Our decision tree for anchor properties was:
Criteria
Action
Did the anchor fall under the property type definition in the property
summary table?
If yes, include.
If no, did we need to redefine or rethink the property
type?
If yes, redefine and re-examine
all other works with the new property type definition.
If no, was the anchor on the spectrum between two
types and could not be assigned to either one?
If yes, add a grey cell in the property
definition table with a short explanation.