Quote:
Originally Posted by phillipgessert
I agree with others that conceptually this is totally an index, I've not seen a TOC that remixes and reshuffles duplicate targets according to categories, but that's pretty much exactly what an index does. So this is basically trying to do something a TOC doesn't, and to make it behave in ways the user doesn't expect.
Finding workarounds feels unfriendly to the reader. I'd be confused why I tapped an empty space and it took me anywhere at all, and I'd be confused if I tapped a labeled entry and it took me nowhere. Actually in both instances, I'd wonder why that was selectable at all. Basically, even if it worked, I don't think you should do it. IMO of course.
|
Exactly--unfriendly to the reader is a good characterization. Sure, we can all argue that it's "really" an index, but push comes to shove, who gives a s**t? I mean, come on, gang, we're losing our minds if we're saying, "oh, sure, it's okay to create an HTML page and call it an index, and tell the user to use it, but
OHMYGOD, if we call it a toc.html, the skies will fall." The Earth will cease to spin on her axis and
we're all doomed. EEK!
What matters is making the material accessible and usable for the buyer. That's it. Getting out of the way, between the author/creator and the buyer and not inserting our own prejudices or likes/dislikes, etc. in the middle.
If the author says that clumping them together in some odd way makes more sense, hell, power to him or her. Call it a "Topic Index," put in HTML links and Go With God.
That's my $.02.
Hitch