Toward Hypertextual Glossaries

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.

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.

…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 informal or traditional columns (except the first and last 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
Section		Informal Selection	Traditional Selection
1.	Overview	Abstract, Metadata (including keywords), and Introduction to format
2.	Motivation	Two Hypothetical Use Scenarios Narrative descriptions of how we imagine glossary tools of the future would be used in everyday life	Formal introduction Overview of issues relevant to the use of glossaries in an electronic document and the significance of those issues
3.	Background and Previous Work	Brief background A short summary of the most pertinent earlier research about hypertextual glossaries for comprehending discursive works	Detailed background A formal literature review and introduction of concepts and terms that are essential to an understanding of the work
4.	Method	Methodology in brief Intended to give the reader sufficient familiarity with the experiment to judge the quality of the results	Detailed methodology Formal presentation of hypotheses, and sufficient details about the techniques used to be sufficient to replicate the experiment
5.	Results	Selected results Presentation and discussion of significant results only	Full results Detailed presentation of all results
6.	Discussion	[ We recommend that readers following the informal selection read the section listed below ]	Formal discussion of results and hypothesis testing Makes the implications of the experimental results clear
6.	Discussion	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 traditional 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	Lessons learned, and Future directions
8.	References	References to all works cited
App.	Tech. Notes	About the markup and link types used
Endnote		§2: Two hypothetical use scenarios Excerpt from [Montgomery, 2000]

The apparent redundancy is largely to support the ways that it is believed scholars read articles such as those in the Hypertext Proceedings [Dillon et al., 1989; Olsen, 1994; O'Hara & Sellen, 1997; Blustein, 2000] but it is also to make the introduction of the speculation in the discussion section seem less incompatible with what would be otherwise a straightforward report of an experiment.

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 Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, 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.
[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 Looking to the Future Proceedings of the CHI 97 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 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.

& .

[Jump to Table Of Contents]