[Sigia-l] IA and Prototype Theory

[Peter Merholz]

On Mar 12, 2004, at 7:54 AM, Sarah Brodwall wrote:
>  I'm interested to hear if any of you have any experience with 
> prototype theory, and if you've thought about any ways in which you 
> might apply it to your work in information architecture.

Alas, all I have been able to do is think about it. (As opposed to 
apply it.)

The IA community has in the past referenced George Lakoff's "Women, 
Fire, And Dangerous Things," which address prototype theory.

(A search on google for ["information architecture" "george lakoff"] 
reveals a number of results.)

Peter van Dijck wrote about basic-level categories here:
http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/002360.html

Unfortunately, there hasn't been much to bridge from information 
architecture to prototype theory. (A google search for ["information 
architecture" "prototype theory"] turns up very little.)

I was thinking about this just last night, as I was chatting with JJG 
about genres of digital documents.

 From a paper titled "Can document-genre metadata improve information 
access to large digital  collections?"
<URL: http://crowston.syr.edu/papers/libtrends03.pdf >

      "As well, because most genres are characterized by both form
       and purpose, identifying the genre of a document provides
       information as to the document’s purpose and its fit to the
       user’s situation, which can be otherwise difficult to assess."

For me, the key element in "genre" is that it responds to *use*. This 
relates to prototype theory and basic-level categories, because, if I 
understand Rosch and Lakoff correctly, humans categorize the world not 
so much on formal appearances as they do on interaction -- a chair is 
not a thing with four legs and a back, it is a thing I sit on that can 
support me when I lean into it.

Genre is emerging as a key property of digital documents, because they 
help the user predict the value, meaning, and most importantly, *use* 
of the document, in a way that other metadata (title, subject, etc.) do 
not.

 From "Writing as Design: Hypermedia and the Shape of Information 
Space", by Andrew Dillon:
<URL: http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~adillon/publications/bromme.pdf >
"The value of genre springs from very real cognitive processes. Genres 
establish context for a reader with the result that anticipatory 
processes prime the reader, enabling faster comprehension. Over lengthy 
documents the genre can serve as a form of schematic representation or 
scaffold for long-term memory. Indeed, there is evidence that such 
forms tie closely to behavioral practices in a community (van Dijk & 
Kintsch, 1983). Genre also supports inference, allowing both readers to 
fill in gaps, and authors to avoid stating every detail."

The reason I'm excited about genre, apart from the fact that I'm a big 
dork, is that I have been relying on genre as a fundamental quality of 
the information architectures I design, though I referred to them as 
"content types" and always had a hard time explaining to other people 
just what they meant. Seeing a wealth of material defining genre and 
providing a rigorous framework for considering it is helping me 
understand just where it belongs in our practice, and providing 
confidence that I was on to something, though I didn't know what.

--peter