Personal Glossaries on the WWW

Meta-section: Article Structure

This hypertext has eight main components which correspond roughly to the IMRD (Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion) superstructure used in most scientific articles [Dillon, 1991, p.917]. The table below is meant to elucidate the structure of this hypertext. The overall link structure is a variation on what Brockmann et al. [1989] refer to as a grid design: parallel sequences with links between connecting the layers so that readers can parts of the sequences at the level of detail of their choice.

To avoid the problem of readers not being sure if they have read all of the text [Smith, 1996], this table of contents links to every node (including endnotes).

Meta-section: How To Read The Article…

The eight components are arranged vertically in the table. Within each of the main components the sub-components are listed in order of progressive length or detail from left to right.

Meta-section: …One from column A and one from column B

Readers may find it helpful to think of the reading order as being menu style: choose one reading for each section from each of the experimental or standard columns (except for a few columns where there are no choices) to get a complete understanding of the work.

The only substantial differences in the chunks presented in the columns are in the motivation section (§2) and discussion section (§6).

 

Table of Contents
Column Headings:
Section Experimental Selection Standard Selection
§1. Overview
§2. Motivation
 Experimental §2: Two Hypothetical Use Scenarios
  • Narrative descriptions of how we imagine glossary tools of the future would be used in everyday life
Endnote:
Excerpt from Montgomery [2000]
 Standard §2: Formal introduction
  • Overview of issues relevant to the use of glossaries in an electronic document and the significance of those issues
  Sidebar
 Glossaries as annotation
  • Background about annotation, and argument about why we contend that glossaries can fruitfully be considered a form of annotation
§3. Background and Previous Work
 Experimental §3:Brief background
  • A short summary of the most pertinent earlier research about hypertextual glossaries for comprehending discursive works
Standard §3: Detailed background
  • A formal literature review and introduction of concepts and terms that are essential to an understanding of the work
§4. Method
 Experimental §4: Methodology in brief
  • Intended to give the reader sufficient familiarity with the experiment to judge the quality of the results
 Standard §4: Detailed methodology
  • Formal presentation of hypotheses, and
  • sufficient details about the techniques used to be sufficient to replicate the experiment
§5. Results
 Experimental §5: Selected results
  • Presentation and discussion of significant results only
Standard §5: Full results
  • Detailed presentation of all results
§6. Discussion
 [
  • We recommend that readers following the experimental selection read the Formal discussion of results and hypothesis testing section listed below
] 		Standard §6: Formal discussion of results and hypothesis testing
  • Makes the implications of the experimental results clear
Experimental §6: Hypertextual significance of this work
  • Speculations about how a future common use for hypertext will be;
  • reader's adapting texts to suit themselves; and
  • necessity of research focus on unique personal glossaries rather than technical challenges of shared glossaries.
[
  • Readers of the standard selection may wish to read the selection entitled Hypertextual significance of this work either immediately after the discussion section or after reading the summary.
]
§7. Summary of Experiment
§8. References
 References to all works cited
Appendices follow
A. Tech. Notes
About the
Subpart A.1:
Tables of entity translations
B. Format
About the
About Meta-sections
 Meta-sections are parts of the website which are about the structure or presentation of the website and not the article proper. They are shown in a different colour than the rest of the text or with a link to an explanatory note.
Metadata
 Dublin Core metadata
  • Metadata encoded using the RDF. Includes recommended reading orders (in machine-readable form).
  • For details about creation and encoding, see DC subsection of Appendix A.
End of Table

Meta-section: Justification for Article Structure

The apparent redundancy is largely to support the ways that it is believed scholars read articles such as those in the Symposium on Document Engineering [Dillon et al., 1989; Olsen, 1994; O'Hara & Sellen, 1997; Blustein, 2000]. More discussion of the format, and a call for comments, are in Appendix B.

References

References for works cited in this text chunk appear below. References for all works cited are available in a separate chunk.

[Blustein, 2000]
James Blustein. Automatically generated hypertext versions of scholarly articles and their evaluation. In HT2K, pages 201 – 210, 2000.
<DOI:10.1145/336296.336364>.
[Brockmann et al., 1989]
R. John Brockmann, William Horton, and Kevin Brock. From Database to Hypertext via Electronic Publishing: An Information Odyssey. In Edward Barrett (editor), The Society of Text: Hypertext, Hypermedia, and the Social Construction of Information (ISBN 0-262-52161-X), chapter 11 (pages 162 – 205), MIT Press, 1989.
[Dillon et al., 1989]
Andrew Dillon, John Richardson, and Cliff McKnight. Human Factors of Journal Usage and Design of Electronic Texts. Interacting with Computers, 1(2): 183 – 189, 1989.
[Dillon, 1991]
Andrew Dillon. Readers' models of text structures: the case of academic articles. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35:913 – 925, 1991.
[DCMI, 2004]
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI). [website]. Copyright 1995 – 2004 DCMI. Last updated: 30 August 2004. Retrieved: 06 September 2004. DCMI and the DCMI Web site are hosted by OCLC Research.
<URL:http://dublincore.org>.
[Montgomery, 2000]
Alicia Montgomery. Politics 2000 Trail Mix. salon.com. 25 April 2000.
Section with heading Hillary's family values.
<URL:http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/04/25/trail_mix/>.
[O'Hara & Sellen, 1997]
Kenton O'Hara and Abigail Sellen. A Comparison of Reading Paper and On-Line Documents. In CHI '97, pages 335 – 342, 1997.
<DOI:10.1145/258549.258787>.
[Olsen, 1994]
Jan Olsen. Electronic Journal Literature: Implications for Scholars. Mecklermedia, 1994.
ISBN 0-88736-925-1.
[Smith, 1996]
Pauline A. Smith. Towards a practical measure of hypertext usability. Interacting with Computers, 8(4):365 – 381, 1996.
<DOI:10.1016/S0953-5438(97)83779-4>.

This document is written in valid XHTML 1.0 & This document makes use of cascading style sheets.

[Jump to Table Of Contents]