[Sigia-l] Isn't that horse dead yet? (was:"meta-"navigation and before that: global navigation meta navigation)

[Livia Labate]

: In other words, these are the crumbs that are typically
: left-over after all the sorting is down. And that is
: their principle of regularity. As such, there will be no
: content-oriented label that can explain them.
: Why not just call it the dust-bin?

What kind of IA places elements in a page if they don't fit the context? 
If it's left-over it goes in the trash can, not on the interface.

Why do we need any of these labels to perform our work? it doesn't help 
at all trying to come up with some universal term when the situations in 
which we use them are highly contextual.

The question of whether or not some elements make up navigation might be 
relevant. If yes, you may assign different groupings for your project 
and call them navigation type X, type Y and type Z - but it is 
unnecessary to come up new terms expecting to find some homogeneous 
pattern across domains, interfaces and people's preferences.

Even if there were such patterns it is highly improbable, in my opinion, 
that they are identifiable through a discussion like this. It concerns 
me though, that some of the comments suggest that there is some sort of 
accidental placement of elements on a page. That's scary.

However, I can see that happening if people assume that you have to have 
  navigations type X, Y and Z as a rule/guidelines/pattern/<insert-misuse-
of-the-term-here> - and if it doesn't fit in those neatly labeled boxes 
than it's "extra" (whatever you label it) - we certainly don't need a 
new name for that, it's called a bad design decision.