I think my most frequently written practical lists are grocery shopping lists and orders for work. Both of these have function; they provide me with a straight-forward way to the finish line, in a sense.  My understanding of practical lists is that they catalogue and/or organise a set of items that have ‘obvious’ connections. Eco (2009, p. 116) argues that within a practical list you can always identify the criteria based on the assembly of items. I think that I agree with this sentiment as I think a practical list can only be practical if it is easily readable and understandable by all readers. If the jump in translation from one item to the next is too big then the practical list loses its functionality and becomes conceptual rather than realistic. However, the reading also suggests that practical lists are finite and cannot be altered (Eco, 2009) which I would have to disagree with. If I add or remove items from my grocery shopping list, that doesn’t make it less functional or understandable. Perhaps however, if I added something I cannot buy at Woolworths, such as…a horse….that would make my practical list less practical because the jump from a dozen green apples to a horse is no longer a realistic leap.

My experiment above is a practical list of stationary that I need to order for work. If someone was to see this list, I think it would be pretty understandable that this is a list of stationary or office supplies and serves its function. I could use this video as a reminder list of frequently bought products so I would never forget to order something. From peer feedback in class, if I was to re-do this experiment, I would use a different background – something more simple that doesn’t draw the eye so much.

References:

Umberto, E 2009, ‘There are lists and lists’, in The infinity of lists, Rizzoli, New York, pp. 112 – 129.