Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Figure 3-2. We use links to make maps and paths.
Since recognition is easier than recall, search is no substitute for words on the screen. As Marcia
Bates illustrated long ago, the process of seeking is iterative and interactive, more berrypicking
than math. lxix What we find and learn changes how and where we look and who and what we
seek. To information foragers who satisfice in patchy environments, words are the signs and
scent. lxx Words as links invite choice and inspire confidence, letting us know we're on the right
path. As we may think, the map is the territory, and the paths and places we build with links are
physically real.
Search increases precision at the expense of serendipity. It also reminds us that navigation isn't
the sole lens for links. In the eyes of Google, links are votes. In the aggregate, they reveal struc-
tures invisible except at scale. Of course, links take us outside the frame of findability. Is the link
useful, usable, accessible, credible, and desirable? Must it be blue or might it be better as a but-
ton? How about an icon with hover text, or a full-blown mega-menu? And what about mobile?
Code, content, design, and brand offer diverse ways to understand that a link affords more than
a click.
While one-way is the norm, our systems host many link types. Links open tabs, windows, media
players; make phone calls, run queries, launch apps. While trackbacks aren't mainstream, we
use analytics and referrer logs to monitor backlinks. We want to know who links to us. On
Kindle, popular highlights become shared links, revealing the passages we respond to the most.
In tweets, #hashtags aren't only links but categories and comments as well. User names are bi-
directional. Maybe that's why @TheTedNelson is on Twitter.
Search WWH ::




Custom Search