In navigation research there is a false dichotomy between browsing and searching. There is a conceptual distinction between them but browsing and searching are only two modes of input to a computer which the machine should mesh together so that users can go back and forth between the two at will.

In contrast, the current crop of lame tools enforces a rigid distinction between browsing and searching so that it is often necessary to use completely different tools to switch modes of input.

For example, typical search engines support no browsing features. You execute a search and then you may browse the results. However, it's impossible to browse a search, or browse your way to the exact search you want.

What's meant by this? Well suppose you're browsing through physics articles. You should be able to see the various categories (astrophysics, cosmology, et cetera). So you select whichever ones you're interested in, either ORing or ANDing your selections, and the software creates a new category with your search results in them. So you browse in there and iterate.

Google Directory supports BrowsingSearches.

----

I'd say it most a ''user-perceived'' false dichotomy than in the research. I have heard Microsoft fans say that the WinFS interface is more powerful than other search engines because it lets you interactively refine the view. Ie, show me all files containing this word; now of those show me the ones that are more than a megabyte; now of those... etc. They miss the realization that the "browsing" is just interface sugar for searches with successive query terms added.

''I apologize for being unclear. Search results should be organized along the same lines as the browsing categorization scheme. Very few search tools are associated with a categorization scheme, and even fewer exploit it to categorize results of a search. Browsing search terms is only an adjunct to this idea.''

----

More CategoryInteractionDesign than CategoryUserInterface