Many of the examples of generous interfaces given here rely on filters to break larger collections into a limited number of categories that can be more easily sorted through. While many of these interfaces provide more than one type of categorization so users can browse objects in more than one way, the main isssue I see with any potential interface which sorts work into categories is that these categories are only as good as they 1. match a user’s understanding of what they mean and 2. identify & help users find useful information about an object. For example, if I am trying to browse audio projects and the filter for audio doesn’t include projects that feature music or spoken words, I may be missing a lot of what I am interested in exploring because the category doesn’t match my understanding of it. On the other side of things, it may be the case that the person who designed the interface has a different understanding of what aspects of a work are important than I do, and if I am unable to find a category that fits what I’m interested in searching for, I may conclude that it does not exist.

On the positive side of things, I think this article and the approach to generous interfaces does highlight the importance of browsing as an experience not necessarily directed at a specific goal. Creating an interface which prioritizes this over search is important for researchers, sure, but also for more casual users who do not come to a collection with a particular goal in mind. It can make the works more accessible visually and in how it allows for greater interaction with pieces that might otherwise go overlooked if they had to be directly sought out.