Monocline grouping

Posted by on 10 September 2009 21:19 Leave a comment (3) Go to comments

The discussion on my previous post has necessitated a better explanation of the term monocline grouping.

A monocline grouping is a representation of data in a single layer (i.e., without a nested hierarchy). Let’s take my bookshelf for example. I have on the left religious books (including a few music books), followed to the right by Dutch and German books, and continuing on with literature and poetry books. And there in between are a few books that don’t really fit into one of those generalizations. And sometimes I’ve rearranged them out of their groups so they look nice on the shelf.

This is a very natural and understandable way to organize them. I can esaily access any book at any time, even if I’ve forgotten (or don’t care) which category I’ve placed it in. All the books are arranged in a single layer.

The problem with computer hierarchies is that they allow the user to nest objects of a certain type within objects of that same type: you can have an infinity of folders within folders which you must traverse before you come to a file.

Programmers understand this paradigm just fine; they have no trouble with it. But normal human beings are used to having things in monocline groupings. Even my file box is only one level deep: I open the box and there are all my folders. I don’t have another file box within that file box. (Now I do have manilla folders inside hanging folders, but the point is that I can see them all at once.)

Monocline grouping, as far as I can tell, is a term created by Alan Cooper, and it’s not very widely used by people not acquainted with his ideas. However, the concept is universal in its application.

As I mentioned in my comment (and as is mentioned on this blog post, a quote from Cooper’s book About Face 2.0), monocline groupings are not the end-all solution for everything. They can be very useful when applied with prudence.

design,
  • http://instancevariable.wordpress.com/ Steven

    I recognized today that a good example of this concept is the iPhone home screen. All the applications are organized in a monocline grouping. You don’t have to search through an Organizer menu to find the Calendar and Contacts. The games are not in a separate place. All the apps are represented equally. You are then free to rearrange them as you like, however best suits your style. The various pages of the home screen allow you to create a sort of hierarchy, if you want. For example, my first page has all the apps I use every day–calendar, notes, contacts, Twitter. The second page has all my lesser-used apps, and the third page has all my games.

    The Settings app does have things organized into a hierarchy, though. This supports bryant-man’s contention (see previous post) that sometimes hierarchies really are necessary and intuitive.

    Apple combines the best of both worlds with this interface.

  • http://instancevariable.wordpress.com/ Steven

    I recognized today that a good example of this concept is the iPhone home screen. All the applications are organized in a monocline grouping. You don’t have to search through an Organizer menu to find the Calendar and Contacts. The games are not in a separate place. All the apps are represented equally. You are then free to rearrange them as you like, however best suits your style. The various pages of the home screen allow you to create a sort of hierarchy, if you want. For example, my first page has all the apps I use every day–calendar, notes, contacts, Twitter. The second page has all my lesser-used apps, and the third page has all my games.

    The Settings app does have things organized into a hierarchy, though. This supports bryant-man’s contention (see previous post) that sometimes hierarchies really are necessary and intuitive.

    Apple combines the best of both worlds with this interface.

  • Pingback: Twitter has become my new blog « Global Constant