Take the 2-minute tour ×
User Experience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for user experience researchers and experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Does the rule "Don't use the same name/word to refer to two different things" have a name, and, if so, what is that name?

share|improve this question
2  
The inverse of that rule -- never use different words to describe the same thing -- is ubiquitous language. –  Patrick McElhaney Oct 3 '11 at 18:38
add comment

8 Answers

up vote 7 down vote accepted

I don't recall a common name for the rule, but I found two definitions of the situation that you're trying to prevent:

In software, when words have several meanings, this is called overloading. Your rule would be 'avoid overloading names/words'.

Ambiguity is a more general term for the same thing. So the rule could be 'use unambiguous names /words/terms' or 'define your terminology unambiguously'.

share|improve this answer
2  
A Google search for "ambigous antonym" led me to monosemy (via synonym.com/antonym/ambiguous) –  Patrick McElhaney Oct 3 '11 at 19:04
1  
Yes, you could go with "avoid polysemy" if you wanted to go concise. :) –  Alex Feinman Oct 3 '11 at 19:09
    
+1, thanks much. Overloading is a great word. So, @PatrickMcElhaney, is monosemy. –  msh210 Oct 3 '11 at 20:54
    
Both good terms. I would use overloading for two different concepts having the same reference, and ambiguity when the boundary is uncertain (eg. does "Taxes" include excise, penalties, and fees; or just try asking the Australian Film Commission for their definition of an "Australian film") –  Erics Oct 3 '11 at 22:33
    
I'd checkmark (accept) this answer or JohnGB's, and chose this one because I happen to like the word overloading. –  msh210 Nov 1 '11 at 23:41
add comment

There's no official name, but I like to call it consistency.

It describes it and is clear enough that a special name isn't needed. It also applies to more than just names.

share|improve this answer
    
+1 and thank you. –  msh210 Oct 3 '11 at 16:51
3  
+1. Nielsen's heuristics say: "Consistency and standards: Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions." –  Vitaly Mijiritsky Oct 3 '11 at 20:28
1  
"There is no official name" I am pretty sure that in the other 90% of the english language, which most of us don't know, there is a term for this. My answer below is "The act of making words mutually exlusive." –  JeroenEijkhof Oct 4 '11 at 15:30
    
-1 Since I could consistently use one word to describe different things. This is not about consistency. –  JeroenEijkhof Oct 4 '11 at 15:32
2  
@JeroenEijkhof: Oxford dictionary definition of consistent: (adjective) acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate. –  JohnGB Oct 6 '11 at 15:31
add comment

Maybe Terminology standardisation?

In the book Language, culture and communication in contemporary Europe, by Charlotte Hoffmann, she writes:

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
    
+1, but that seems to be more about setting independent standards of terminology than about one information provider using the same term for two referents. –  msh210 Oct 3 '11 at 16:51
add comment

There's a precept in About Face summarized as "Make things that are different look different." This seems like a special case of that.

share|improve this answer
    
So it does. But that doesn't answer my question about a name for the rule. +1, anyway, for the reference. –  msh210 Oct 3 '11 at 20:55
add comment

FWIT, I’ve published a taxonomy of inconsistencies to aid in user performance analysis, but I suspect it isn’t widely known.

Inconsistency within different parts of the same product are internal, while inconsistency between a product and some other reference (e.g., a standard, a legacy product, or a metaphor) are external.

A contradiction is when the same thing has two different usages. An irregularity is when two different things have the same usage.

The “things” above can be symbols, codes, unit use, formats, terms (like your case), abbreviations, and layout (That makes the mnemonic acronym SCUFTAL).

So what you have is an internal terminology contradiction… which, as you probably know, is really bad.

share|improve this answer
    
What about using the same term for both the noun, and the verb action that produces that noun. For example: scheduling a schedule, programming a programme, cooking a cook^W^W^W. –  Erics Oct 4 '11 at 8:42
add comment

One form of this two-meanings-for-same-term is known as a synecdoche, and is particularly confusing.

  • Part of something is used to refer to the whole thing (pars pro toto), or
  • A thing (a "whole") is used to refer to part of it (totum pro parte), or
  • A specific class of thing is used to refer to a larger, more general class, or
  • A general class of thing is used to refer to a smaller, more specific class, or
  • A material is used to refer to an object composed of that material, or
  • A container is used to refer to its contents.

I was once in a meeting with 6 others discussing a website for a radio station, and only after an hour of confused back and forth did someone stop to ask "when you say 'programme', do you mean the instance of broadcast, or the conceptual ongoing series of broadcasts under that name?".

share|improve this answer
1  
Another example I've seen: my username/password settings for my online banking is under the heading Account Settings, which is confusing because my online banking account thus contains accounts (the latter are apparently properly known in banking jargon as "arrangements"). –  Erics Oct 4 '11 at 8:38
add comment

I would reverse that and say "Do use namespaces". Rather than just telling people what not to do, this provides a solution right away.

share|improve this answer
    
Sounds good. But that doesn't answer my question about a name for the rule. –  msh210 Oct 4 '11 at 15:26
    
Well my rule could be named 'namespacing', but you're right, I didn't name your rule. Sorry for trying to help. –  marcvangend Oct 4 '11 at 16:05
    
No apology necessary. Thanks for trying. (And I'm not the one who downvoted your answer, FWIW.) –  msh210 Oct 4 '11 at 17:45
add comment

Mutual exclusivity,
could be applied to this situation. The act of making words mutually exlusive.

(found no good reference to back me up, anyone?)

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.