a model of the role of conceptual metaphors in hypermedia comprehension

A Model of the Role of Conceptual Metaphors

in Hypermedia Comprehension

Anne-Sophie Collard, Pierre FastrezUniversité catholique de Louvain, Belgium

2

Metaphors in hypermedia: context

• We understand the way we interact with hypermedia through metaphor– The very notion of "navigation" implies an underlying

spatial metaphor (Edwards & Hardman 1989, Panurak 1989, Dillon, McKnight et Richardson 1990, Dieberger 1994, Kim & Hirtle 1995)

– Numerous hypermedia interfaces reproduce familiar objects or locations to facilitate their use• E.g.: virtual campuses, websites for kids…)

– “Spatial hypertext” has been advocated as a means to facilitate navigation(Marshall & Shipman 1995; Dieberger 1995)

A.-S. Collard & P. Fastrez CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009

An example of hypermedia using an explicit (city) metaphor

4

Metaphors in hypermedia: context

• Metaphors are often recognized as a means to facilitate hypermedia navigation…… but their effect is seldom explained.

• We propose a theoretical framework– based on conceptual metaphor theory (or CMT,

Lakoff & Johnson) and blending theory (or BT, Fauconnier & Turner)

– to explain the role metaphor plays, as a cognitive tool, in hypermedia comprehension


5

Outline

1. Theoretical foundations: metaphors and conceptual blending

2. Our proposal : a three-layer model3. The model in the course of navigation4. Conclusions and future work


6

Metaphor as a cognitive tool

• CMT(Lakoff & Johnson 1980, 1999) considers metaphors as:– cognitive tools, not literary style figures– a means of understanding abstract concepts in

terms of more concrete ones– involving the mapping of image-schematic

structure from a source experience domain to a target experience domain• E.g.: DISCUSSION IS WAR


7

Metaphor as a cognitive tool

• Metaphorical mappings– are partial but systematic– highlight some aspects of the target,

but hide others– are organized hierarchically: • elaborate high-level structural metaphors inherit

mappings from lower-level (e.g. ontological or orientation) metaphors


8

Conceptual integration networks

• Conceptual blending: – a basic and ubiquitous cognitive operation that

accounts for many aspects of human imagination (Turner 2002)

– involves the construction and manipulation of a conceptual integration network


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 9


• Mental spaces in the network: – Input spaces, generic

space, and blend

• Cross-space mapping between input spaces and selective projection into the blend

• Composition, completion and elaboration

A.-S. Collard & P. Fastrez

CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 10


• Conceptual metaphors can be described and analyzed in terms of blends– E.g. “this surgeon is a butcher”

• We will analyze the metaphors underlying hypermedia use and comprehension using BT terminology and notation


Pierre Fastrez

Commentaire de Charles Forcevile: "nécessaire de faire appel au blending? Toutes les métaphors sont des blends, mais pas l'inverse: il y a moins de contraintes sur les blends que sur les métaphores - et donc mieux vaut les traiter séparément."=> introduire les métaphores (3 niveaux à partir de la CMT seulement, et introduire la BT uniquement quand nécessaire (dans les cas de clashes entre inputs, comme celui de la webpage 'accueil' de la bibliothèque)

11

A three-layer model

• Based on empirical research on factors influencing knowledge construction through hypermedia use

• Factors =– Hypermedia structure (Fastrez 2002, 2005)– Metaphors in hypermedia interfaces (Collard

2009)


12

A three-layer model

• Focus on the construction of the mental model of a hypermedia

• This model integrates, through multiple metaphorical projections, different items from distinct mental spaces

• These projections are organized in a hierarchical structure – i.e.: the higher-level mappings inherit the structure of

lower-level projections– This structure includes three levels, or “layers”


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 13

1 | Primary metaphors

Motion through space

Bodily experien

ce of space

hypermedia

• Pervasive orientation and ontological metaphors

• Source domain: our experience of space

• A dual metaphor– Motion through space

• Pages and sections are CONTAINERS connected by PATHS

• Egocentric or exocentric orientation

– Object manipulation• Pages and sections are nested

CONTAINERS opened by the user


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 14

1 | Primary metaphors• Documented for the web by

Matlock & Maglio 1996, Maglio & Matlock 1998, 2003

• Documented for off-line hypermedia by Fastrez 2002


Source Percentage N

Motion of S in D 90.21 % 1521

Manipulation of D by S 9.23 % 159

Other 0.36 % 6

Target: Action of subject (S) on document (D)

Source Percentage N

Position of S in D 70.38 % 202

Disorientation 23.69 % 68

Possession of D by S 5.92 % 17

Target: State of S with respect to D

CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 15

1 | Primary metaphors• Documented for the web by

Matlock & Maglio 1996, Maglio & Matlock 1998, 2003

• Documented for off-line hypermedia by Fastrez 2002


Source Percentage N

Motion of S in I 4.95 % 21

Manipulation of I by S 31.60 % 134

Possession of I by S 15.57 % 66

Vision of I by S 33.96 % 144

Action of I on S 12.74 % 54

Other 1.18 % 5

Target: Processing of information (I) by subject (S)

CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 16

2 | Generic metaphors

• Conventional structural metaphors• Hypermedia as a typical media

format• “To me, a website is like a…”• Source concepts (Collard 2009):

– Book (page, chapter, title…)– Library (entrance, floor…)– Tree– Spider web– …

Navigationin

a building

Motion

through

space

Library


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 17

3 | Specific metaphors

Visit to this library

Navigation

This library


• Specific hypermedia rely on specific metaphors

• Specific metaphors provide additional structure to generic metaphors

• Example: « Biblio »– Library > floors > aisles >

books > chapters

CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 18



• The source domain of a specific metaphor can structure a hyperdocument at the physical and at the semantic level

Metaphor type Target• Physical:• Interfacial Interface• Hypertextual Structure• Hypermediatic Interface & structure

• Semantic Informational contents

19

Biblio, Texto, and HyperDoc


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 20

Biblio ‘entrance’ pageHypermediatic metaphor, with the library as a source


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 21

Biblio ‘floor’ pageHypermediatic metaphor, with the library as a source


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 22

Biblio ‘aisle’ pageHypermediatic metaphor, with the library as a source


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 23

Biblio ‘book’ pageHypermediatic metaphor, with the library as a source


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 24

Texto homepageHypertextual metaphor, with the library as a source


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 25

Texto main section pageHypertextual metaphor, with the library as a source


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 26

Texto subsection pageHypertextual metaphor, with the library as a source


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 27

Texto pageHypertextual metaphor, with the library as a source


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 28

HyperDoc homepageNo specific metaphor


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 29

HyperDoc main section pageNo specific metaphor


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 30

HyperDoc subsection pageNo specific metaphor


CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009 31

HyperDoc pageNo specific metaphor


32


• Specific metaphors, when explicit (i.e. interfacial), tend to determine what generic metaphor is used to make sense of the hyperdocument


Answers to the question « To me, this website is built like a… »

χ2 = 32.58 ; p < 0.001

« a library » other Total

Biblio 14 9 23

Texto 0 21 21

HyperDoc 0 21 21

33

The whole picture

• Each layer in the network inherits structure from the previous layer

• The blend includes the user – not just a metaphor of the

hypermedia itself– Cf. dual primary spatial

metaphor

• Simplified examples:– Visiting this library– Browsing this book


Bodily experience

of spaceHypermedia

Motion through

spaceBuilding

This library

Visiting this library

Navigation in a

building

34

The whole picture

• Each layer in the network inherits structure from the previous layer

• The blend includes the user – not just a metaphor of the

hypermedia itself– Cf. dual primary spatial

metaphor

• Simplified examples:– Visiting this library– Browsing this book


Bodily experience

of spaceHypermedia

Object Mani-

pulationDocument

This book

Browsing this book

Document browsing

35

The whole picture

• The network is seldom unified and coherent• Rather, it is a patchwork of blends constructed

opportunistically within context– Both primary metaphors (navigation and manipulation)

are often used by the same users• The same ‘source’ input spaces can be mapped to

different ‘target’ spaces depending on context– Hyperdocument structure, contents, or both– Targets from different layers

• E.g. webpage vs. library book page…


36

The whole picture• Generic webpage metaphor (subject from Biblio condition)

– « Il y avait la porte d'entrée, je suis rentré dedans, je suis arrivé sur heu, oui, la page où il y avait, je pense que c'était l'accueil. Et il y avait les trois, les différents étages où je pouvais aller. Voilà, là j'ai été au premier étage. »

• Specific library book page metaphor (same subject)– « Je sais pas si c'était dans cet étage-là où il y avait "physique",

"télécommunication", 'fin bref en tout cas je suis rentr', j'ai cliqué sur un, sur une des options, et heu ben en fonction de là à nouveau j'avais des livres, j'ai cliqué sur un livre, et à nouveau j'avais une page qui s'ouvrait , les caractéristiques "page suivante" etc.(…)En tout cas il y avait une étagère avec plusieurs livres et il y avait le livre "Firewall" et j'ai cliqué dessus. Et voilà, c'était le livre où il y avait la plus petite explication, c'est pour ça que j'ai retenu. Et heu voilà, je pense c'est une ou deux pages et après on pouvait tout simplement fermer le livre. »


37

The whole picture• Generic webpage metaphor (subject from Biblio condition)

– “There was the entrance door, I went in, I came onto… uh, yes, the page where there was, I think it was the reception. And there were the three, the different floors where I could go. Then I went to the first floor.”

• Specific library book page metaphor (same subject)– “I don’t know if it was in that floor where there was « physics »,

« telecommunication », anyway in any case I went int’, I clicked on a, on one of the options and… uh well… in function of this again I had books, I clicked on a book, and again I had a page that opened, the properties ‘next page’, etc. (…)In any case, there was a shelf with several books and there was the ‘Firewall’ book and I clicked on it. And then, it was the book where there was the shortest explanation, that’s why I remembered. And uh… then, I think it’s one or two pages and then one could simply close the book.”


38

‘Running the blend’

• The conceptual integration network is built dynamically– It can be modified in the course of navigation– It can modify the course of navigation– It can be modified by the course of navigation


39


• The CIN can be modified in the course of navigation– E.g. switching

between navigation and manipulation in the library…

– Same interaction, different blend

(source: Neisser 1976)


40


• The CIN can modify the course of navigation– Example: browsing ‘books in the library’

• Two specific navigation tools: – table of contents– Previous page / next page links

• Texto subjects tend to use the TOC more than Biblio subjects, as an alternative to the ‘previous/next’ links– pTexto = 0.39 ; pBiblio = 0.09 ; p < 0;001

• They interpret the ‘previous/next’ links as ‘back’ and ‘forward’ browser buttons, without relying on the book metaphor

• They are confused about how they work when they try them• Biblio subjects are able to interpret these links within the context

of the book metaphor


41


• The CIN can be modified by the course of navigation– Example: browsing ‘books in the library’• When Biblio subjects interpret the “previous-next” links

outside of the book metaphor, their usage of these links prompt them to construct the appropriate metaphorical mapping


42

Conclusions and future work

• Different metaphors orient the user’s comprehension of hypermedia and of their interaction with it, depending on the way they are implemented and the way they are made explicit

• Metaphors impact navigation behavior, and therefore are likely to impact the way the user constructs knowledge through browsing.

• Future empirical work will explore:– The specific effects of metaphors on navigation behavior– The extent to which these effects impact contents

understandingA.-S. Collard & P. Fastrez CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009

Thank you for your attention

Questions?

A.-S. Collard & P. Fastrez 43CICOM’2009 – Sept 24th, 2009

a model of the role of conceptual metaphors in hypermedia comprehension

Technology