Methodology

Text Menu




Including sites

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.