In their Reinventing Knowledge
chapter on monasteries and convents, Ian McNeely and Lisa Wolverton mention findability
techniques developed following the invention of the page, including
alphabetical order (p. 91). David
Weinberger, in Everything Is Miscellaneous,
also discusses the development of alphabetical order in the Middle Ages. He points out that it took a long time to
catch on because, in his opinion, it was “conceptually confusing.” To prove his point about confusion, he quotes
alphabetizing instructions from 1286, which apart from the funny spelling, are actually
quite clear (pp. 26-27). Weinberger is
correct, however, that alphabetical order took centuries to be accepted, but he
is wrong about the reason. It was not too
confusing, it was too easy.
According to Mary
and Richard Rouse in their article “Statim
invenire: Schools, Preachers, and New Attitudes to the Page,”* the alphabet
is an artificial method of ordering as opposed to a rational method. This distinction can be seen in glosses,
reference works that explained details of the Bible without biblical interpretation. These glosses eventually evolved into
glossaries. Information in early glosses
appeared in the same order that it appeared in the Bible or other religious books.
This is called a rational order. Even
indexes were arranged in the same order as the book being indexed. To find something, you had to already know
what page it was on. Rouse &
Rouse indicate these early finding devices were meant to reflect the concept
that the “universe is a harmonious whole” (p. 202). So the primary concern of arrangement was to
promote philosophy not to find information.
That changed when
authors of religious books needed streamlined access to information. As preachers, they started alphabetizing
material called distinction collections to help them prepare weekly, or in 1200
perhaps daily, sermons. Alphabetical order is an artificial method
because it has no purpose other than to arrange information. It does not reflect how the book is
organized. It does not reflect a philosophical
theory. It just puts material into a
simple, easy to understand structure.
The preachers apologized for using alphabetical order, but they went
ahead and developed the method because they needed to find information fast.
The
controversy over alphabetical order continues today. An information architecture discussion list
recently had a lively exchange about popularity ranking vs. the alphabet. One person preferred popularity because it
was felt that alphabetical order is essentially random. The respondent here was confusing an
artificial arrangement with a complete lack of order. More interesting, however, is the assumption
that a rational order with unknown values, such as popularity, is preferable to
an artificial order with known values, such as the alphabet. We pretty much all know the alphabet, but if
you look at a list of items arranged by popularity, you can only guess at individual
placement.
Function
determines the form of an arrangement.
Popularity and the alphabet serve different functions. There are many situations where popularity is
the most valuable organizing choice. But
if you just want to display information for fast location, those preachers in
the Middle Ages developed a very easy method.
______________________
* The Rouse and Rouse article is
available as a chapter in their book Authentic Witnesses: Approaches to
Medieval Texts and Manuscripts (1991) and in the conference proceedings
Renaissance and Renewal in the
Twelfth Century (Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable, eds., 1982).