Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, there are people who think categories are superior to lists in all regards. I like to think there are exceptions.
Cats are superior? Since when??
I love cats, they taste like chicken. Oh wait...
A category can't have annotations, but that doesn't mean they're not useful; some of us like our information in large unadulterated doses :)
One of the interesting differences is their role in the actual process of organising information (as opposed to the end result). Categories are good when you spot a similarity between a number of articles and want to start formalising that link. Lists are good when you see a need for a set of related articles that don't yet exist.
Yes...
Both are ok for allowing navigation through sets of related articles, but IMHO navigation boxes are much, much better.
Navboxes don't obsolete categories though. Would you have a navbox for "living people"????
Incidentally, Encyclopaedia Britannica (2004 edition on CD) seems to use hierarchical lists as its preferred method: At the bottom of an article, you get a list with varying levels of indentation. Clicking on an item takes you to another article guaranteed to have that same list. It works pretty well!
Sounds a lot like an "expanded" category/navbox.