Gripes about links in a paper dictionaryDecember 2000, English revision 28.08.04Thinking about the link structure of encyclopaedias and dictionaries (#06), I took a closer look to the German etymological dictionary, Duden Volume 7 in its 2nd edition. Particularly, I examined the word family of 1Ball (comprises the German equivalents of ball; bantling, soon, deal, balloon, bull, to blossom, blood, bale, billow; Leopold, bar, phalanx, bulwark, flower, blossom, leaf, bloom, nap, foil, chlorophyll, blow, pock; budget, cushion, drunkard, balcony, plank, boulevard, flowery phrase, flora, flourish, floret, folio, feature pages). The link structures were completely unsystematic/ inconsistent (see foil 1)
Marking of links is completely inconsistent / unsystematic, or the systematics is not intelligible: with or without reference arrow, with or without italicizing, with or without words like "vgl." or similar (foil 3). In any case, the various link markings do not seem to mark the differences between references from/to parent nodes, and cross references like
(PS 2004: in the meantime, http://www.hrz.uni-dortmund.de/~hytex/texte/hyper2/pfeile.html shows something similar) The selection of links could be cleaned-up, if the second-purpose of constructing an overview were achieved by dedicated visualization efforts (like this sample) rather than via attempts with compromises in text design. Already the mere text presentation could contribute to visualization, e. g., bullet lists for meaning groups (blühen, blasen). Also, the text itself could be cleaned from countless duplications if link handling were more consistent (e. g. with blähen and Blatter, the identical passage shows up "eng verwandt mit den unter blasen und ... behandelten Wörtern und gehört mit diesen zu der unter 1Ball dargestellten Wortgruppe".) If the (alledgedly always meagre) space were thus saved it could them be used for bullet structuring. (At some point one arrives at the argumentation that many peculiarities of a dictionary are indispensable for the alphabetical accessability, and at some point one must in fact question the very alphabetical order. If a machine readable copy is present, why not arrange the paper text or also of the printer-friendly e-text sections by subject, instead ?) Additional desirable visualisations include:
|