[Sigia-l] List order

[Derek R]

Ziya wrote:

>| As the number of items [a list] grow or the length
>| of each item (words therein) increase, then the eye
>| has to scan iteratively


It might improve understanding here to use the word 'retrospection' to
describe the human activity of scanning volume for holistic coherence
(meaning and intent), which is the actual human activity of looking back
*in contemplation* of past events. 

Following from this, the key element in deciding the most appropriate
content order is 'user need' (as Dr. Pittas notes) but moreover we must
recognize user need originates and develops *in response* to the
continuous activity of scanning the content.[1] 

If we could just 'find' things order would not be an issue (neither
would 'user need' since every need would be fulfilled). Unfortunately
this is not the case which is why we have the ever-present challenge of
ordering.

See also 'Retrospective Patterning' as it relates to the user's
perception of structure -->
http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/0203/0459.html
	 
	 
	 
[1] This can be applied to any case, but, in Joe's example of option #2
which is groups ordered by geographic class, it is easy to see how the
user, in response to the content found in the list (order by geographic
classification), can misread or overlook a more appropriate option
because the presentation indicates 'location' as a premium
differentiation. If the user's mental-model tells them a New York City
group distinction, for instance, is somehow 'more serious' than another
group option, they can easily be mislead simply based on the way the
content was presented to them. All this speaks to how the activity of
scanning works in conjunction with the presented content to formulate
'ideas' for the user about what it all means (call it 'information
design'). Therefore, the best way to assist the user in finding the most
appropriate content is to adopt the most objective presentation (Tufte's
reduce the non-data ink and maximize the data ink) since that does not
add anything to complicate the matter, neither does it risk assumption
('a priori' action) which goes against the user's *continuous*
adjustment of tasks/goals in response to scanning content. 

In short, you need to give the user the best chance to achieve what they
can only accomplish themselves (ie. discovery & understanding).