Structural terminology is important to hypertext

One of the major ways that hypertext differs from [print,linear] text is that structures are more critical to the experience of the work. In a story, you don't necessarily need to know where you are because there is always a line stretching out ahead of you. There are structures underlying the story which are important, sure-- time rarely flows only forward, different plot threads come and go, and characters all have their own ways of thinking about the events of the story.

But in hypertext:

• the reader is forced to consider (or even speculate or second-guess) structure in order to read through the text
• in light of the (potentially arbitrary) linear order the reader gives to the lexia, secondary structures --the ways the reader pieces together the work conceptually-- become more significant

Non-hypertextual non-fiction is more like hypertext in that the author generally needs to place a more explicit structure over the work for lack of the easy line of the narrative. We can look at whether a history textbook moves through historical time periods linearly for each culture it examines or surveys all cultures in each time period before moving on, in a sort of geographic spiral.

But we have few terms for discussing those structures even in outside of hypertext, and the need to articulate them is more critical for discussion of hypertext.