Dhritiman Ray looks at the use of glossaries as a tool for ethical reflection. Published 1 September 2026.
Language, on the face of it, is just a mess of squiggles and sounds. To make meaning, we need ways to give it structure. Usually, we regard glossaries as mere lists of unfamiliar words. Appended to the back of the ‘main’ text, the reader often politely ignores them. That is, until we encounter something unfamiliar or confusing. Thus, on a closer look, glossaries are sophisticated maps. They help us reorient ourselves. They can determine how we navigate topics, disciplines, and concepts.
Just like any other map, a glossary’s design determines whether it helps you find your way or obscure the very terrain it promises to reveal. When I was tasked with searching for what makes a good glossary in the context of the Digital Good Index, design was the last thing on my mind. After completing my search, I can confidently say that design is to glossaries, what the compass is to cartography. Here is what I learned from my research.
The process of looking for glossaries
During my internship at the ESRC Digital Good Network, I used a systematic plan to search for glossaries related to nine values at the heart of the Digital Good Index (see image below). I then searched for glossaries using the Google search engine. Since search results can be endless, I decided to analyse only the first two pages of the results. Each selected glossary was then evaluated for its language, length, design, plurality of perspectives, reference to other resources, and whether it was suitable for the Digital Good Index.
Two broad design approaches
The selected glossaries could be classified on a spectrum. On one end of the spectrum is what I call a dictionary approach where a large number of terms were mentioned with one line definition each. No other relevant information was linked to them.
On the other end of the spectrum was the handbook approach. Here a small number of concepts were explored in-depth. Plenty of other relevant information was either discussed or referenced in the text.
Since the Digital Good Index is a set of tools for self-evaluation, the glossary needed to create a space for reflection. One- or two-line definitions felt too definite and brief. The handbook approach left scope for disagreement and exploration. However, most handbooks had only a few terms. Since the Digital Good Index intends to be useful for a diverse group of users, limiting the breadth of the glossary to a few terms might defeat its purpose. To provide appropriate conceptual resources for myriad problems, dilemmas, and contexts the glossary needs to represent a fairly large number of terms.
Therefore, it seemed that neither approach was useful on its own. However, in my view the ideal glossary sat closer to the handbook rather than the dictionary approach.
The importance of design
As a person who generally works with words and gestures, I must admit that I have never given appropriate importance to the design of things that I use everyday. However, when you evaluate thirty glossaries, it quickly becomes a learning experience. The navigability of a glossary, its aesthetic presentation, and the medium used to present were crucial in how useful they felt. There were quite a few glossaries that had amazing content, but bad design made them difficult to use.
Bad design disrupted one of the core functions of a glossary. Glossaries need to be unobtrusive to be useful. Their usual function is to provide appropriate information to their readers so that they can go back to other tasks. Bad design here functioned like a haunted stage that overtook the play. Instead of facilitating its designated role of foregrounding the actors, the design instead launched into its own jarring soliloquy.
Elements of good design
Based on our review of all the selected glossaries, I found these elements that could inform the design of a glossary and make it ‘good’:
- Navigability: Quick navigation is crucial for a glossary’s unobtrusiveness. I found that combining two forms of navigation might be the most user-friendly approach. Dividing a glossary according to alphabetical order, like a dictionary, seems to be familiar. On the other hand, having some form of conceptual division can also aid a user when they’re trying to explore different concepts rather than look for one specific term.
- Accessibility: Accessibility in both language and design is important.
- In terms of language, using words that are not overtly complex or specific to certain disciplines. Or explaining technical terms in plain language could also be useful. Although all the glossaries included in my search were in English, it would of course be helpful to have the same glossary in as many languages as possible. Perhaps digital tools like the ones that translate a text automatically can help this process. However, since the terms that were included in this glossary were quite nuanced, judgement will be indispensable.
- Design accessibility included creating a good user interface which does not overwhelm average users. Having clear markers of where the search tools are, or where the index was significantly improved accessibility. Two glossaries also used pictorial depictions along with text to explain terms. This could be an underexplored avenue to improve the accessibility of glossaries.
- Presentation: Presenting an overview of all the terms with one-line definitions and then allowing a user to click on a term and dive deeper into it seem to be the best synthesis of a dictionary and handbook approach. When all the terms are presented together, a reader could easily skim through the whole glossary and freely explore terms that they did not even know exist. A different page for each term seemed to be the psychological space where a person could pause and think more slowly and in complex ways that allowed for self-reflection.
- Format of the glossary: The medium of the glossary was also quite important. Most of the glossaries were websites. A few of them were PDF files. The website had the advantage of being more dynamic and being more navigable. The PDFs could especially be useful in a situation where the internet connection was unreliable or non-existent. In my opinion, the ease of a website was far more significant than a PDF file’s portability. Therefore, perhaps a website can be complemented by a PDF version of the same glossary.
Elements of good content
Apart from the design elements listed above, the following two principles were also useful to make a glossary more useful for ethical reflection:
- Value-transparency: Even though many of the glossaries claimed to represent certain values, the content of these glossaries did not take any clear stance in terms of ethics. Equally they did not explore the ethical dilemmas inherent in certain terms like equity and sustainability in depth. To be useful for reflection, a glossary needs to be transparent about the values that inform it. These values also need to be either explored in the description of the terms, or at least further resources should be linked to them.
- Perspective plurality: The plurality of perspectives was important for similar reasons. They provided space to the reader to come to their own conclusions rather than relying on pre-digested descriptions of complex terms. References, hyperlinks, and connections to related terms, references, and further readings were crucial design elements that further supported the reader’s curiosity and intellect.
Conclusion
In summary, glossaries are important tools to orient oneself in the face of uncertainty. They can therefore also be important tools for self-reflection, and intellectual exploration. The design of a glossary plays a crucial role in this. It must strike a balance between allowing the reader to freely explore information from multiple perspectives, while being unobtrusive. The elements of navigability, accessibility, presentation, format, value-transparency, and perspective plurality are important for a glossary’s utility. In many ways, glossary design fulfils the same function as the architecture of a library; it makes knowledge discoverable without making it prescriptive.
About the author
Dhritiman Ray
Research Intern
Dhritiman Ray is an ESRC-funded PhD scholar in the University of Nottingham. He is researching the intersection of intergenerational and complex trauma in India by using photo-based life stories. He has also practiced as a mental health counsellor in Delhi for several years, working with diverse and marginalised individuals. Currently, he is a Research Intern in the Digital Goods Network.
