Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Research Reports ESPRIT ((3231,volume 1))

Abstract

Whenever we want to describe something new we tend to do this by reference to something familiar. This is the prototypical case for using a metaphor, since they are very powerful devices to communicate even a complex, structured set of properties in a shorthand that is easily understood by all members of a speech community who share the relevant mutual knowledge (Black, 1962). When I for instance say that my job is a jail, I communicate all properties of the superordinate category jail with just that statement. You know without any additional word that my job is like those entities that confine one against one’s will, are unpleasant, are difficult to escape from, and so forth. I need not — indeed, I probably could not — list each of those properties exhaustively. Therefore, my use of the metaphor is more efficient and more precise than any partial listing of the properties of the superordinate jail. In other words, if the attribution of all those properties is the communicative purpose, then the appropriate communicative form is the metaphor. In that sense, as Ortony (1975) argued, metaphors are not just nice, they are necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J.M. & Thomas, J.C. (1982). Metaphor and the cognitive representation of computing systems. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-12 (2), 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J.M., Mack, R.L. & Kellog, W.A. (1988). Interface metaphors and user interface design. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 67–85). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, T.D. (1990). Working with interface metaphors. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design. Apple Computer Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (1982). Are scientific analogies metaphors? In D.S. Miall (Ed.), Metaphor: Problems and perspectives (pp. 106–133). Brighton, Sussex, England: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory, 26, 395–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 ECSC-EC-EAEC, Brussels-Luxembourg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Glowalla, U. (1995). Metaphors for Hypermedia Interfaces. In: Schuler, W., Hannemann, J., Streitz, N. (eds) Designing User Interfaces for Hypermedia. Research Reports ESPRIT, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45743-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45743-2_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58489-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45743-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics