Metaphors
Much has been made of the ability of metaphors to help people quickly understand things. While metaphors are generally helpful, they are a false crutch to cling to. Metaphors are not required nor are they always the best approach. Too many interactive projects, for example, start with the question "what metaphor should the interface use?" Most often, the "interface" shouldn't use any narrowly outlined metaphor.
Metaphors are simply one way of setting context (i.e., transforming data into information). It is important that the context implied is the one intended and that it matches the desired understandings. Too often, metaphors set the wrong context and help create expectations that are not accurate and which cannot be met.
Metaphors are especially useful when they relate well to a user's or reader's experience. However, to be used well they must be abandoned when they begin to fail or when they are asked to do more than the limits of their capabilities. A good example is the desktop metaphor used by many personal computers. The strength of this idea is that it uses familiar objects to indicate relationships by analogy (e.g., a trash can for discarding files or folders for keeping groups of files and other folders together). Fortunately the designers ignored the metaphor when it broke down (e.g., dialog boxes) and didn't try to take it further than was appropriate.
Recently, a colleague suggested
that metaphors could be another way of organizing data. She may
be correct, and more thought should be devoted to this question,
but I believe it is more accurate to say that metaphors are a
means of representing things than a way to organize or present
them. For me, metaphors only achieve a cognitive orientation
of meaning rather than one of structure.
beginning
Copyright 1994 Nathan Shedroff