Web design

[Steve]

x-no-archive: yes

===========================

Is Navigation Useful?  

by Jakob Nielsen
Alertbox 1/9/00


For almost seven years, my studies have shown the same user 
behavior: users look straight at the content and ignore the 
navigation areas when they scan a new page. (Remember, users 
almost always scan - they rarely read carefully online.)  

The big picture of user behavior has held constant as the dominant 
browser has cycled through Mosaic; Netscape 1, 2, and 3; and IE 4 
and 5. It is clearly a fundamental phenomenon. Recently, my 
findings have been confirmed in independent studies by several 
others. This is truly a general phenomenon that characterizes user 
behavior across sites and studies. User studies typically find:  

...users comment on the content first; if the content is not relevant, 
then they don't care about any other aspect of the design when they 
arrive on a page.

...users ignore navigation bars and other global design elements: 
instead they look only at the content area of the page.

...users don't understand where they are in a website's information 
architecture.

...users are extremely goal-driven and look only for the one thing 
they have in mind - they don't spend much time on promotions for 
anything else in pursuit of their goal.

...users often rely on search as their main hunting strategy.

...users rarely look at logos, mission statements, slogans, or any 
other elements they consider fluff (in particular, they ignore 
advertising and anything that looks like an ad).

...if a page does not appear relevant to the user's current goals, then 
the user will ruthlessly click the Back button after two to three 
seconds.

...if users don't understand a certain design element, they don't 
spend time learning it - instead, they ignore it and continue the hunt 
for their own goal.

Some analysts conclude that navigation is useless and that 
navigation elements should be removed from Web pages. Don't try 
teaching users the site structure, don't try showing them where they 
are, don't try telling them where else they can go. Instead, just show 
people content. I don't fully agree with this analysis.  

Navigation is overdone on many sites. In particular, the so-called 
spoke design where every page is linked to every other page leads 
to reduced usability. Similarly, many sites have overblown footers 
that link to too many meta-features (say, "about the company" or a 
privacy statement).  

There is no reason to mention all features of the site on all pages. 
Instead, select a very small number of highly useful features and 
limit pervasive linking to maybe five or six things like search: users 
turn to search when they are lost, and you cannot predict when that 
may happen. Less is more: having a small number of standard links 
on every page makes it more likely that users will notice those links 
they do need. In contrast, a link like "how to contact us" can safely 
be relegated to the home page, which is where users will go when 
they need it. (Exception: Contact info also needs to be on order 
confirmation pages.)  

Similarly, a new site does not need to list all the headlines in the 
margin of every news article. Nor is it necessary to link to all the 
other sections. Restrict linking to basic features (say, search, 
copyright, and a few more), the home page, and the main page for 
the current section. Then use the available space to add useful links 
to related articles and to the author's biography.  

Do not link to all sections of the site from all pages. What is the 
probability that a user will go from looking at hairdryers to looking at 
grunge music? More to the point: what is the probability that the 
user will need the link on the one day in human history when he or 
she wants to make this transition. Why not just go back to the home 
page (one click to a page that is already cached and thus displays in 
half a second if coded correctly).  

Instead, provide links to all levels of the hierarchy above the current 
location. Breadcrumb trails serve two purposes:  

...the context of the current page (how it is nested) allows users to 
interpret the page better (you don't just know that you are looking at 
product 354, you also know that it belongs to the widget product 
family).

...the links allow users to go directly to a higher level of the site in 
case the current page is not what they wanted, but they do want 
something similar.

True, users will often ignore the structural links, but sometimes they 
will notice them, especially when they are interested in 
understanding a page better. Without structural links, pages become 
orphans that are not contextualized. And since users often arrive at 
pages through search or other means that bypass the higher-level 
navigation pages, it is necessary to provide a path back to these 
higher levels. In particular, it is useful to link to a page that provides 
an overview of the current subsite or region.  

Local links to related content are also very useful. Users rarely land 
directly at the desired page, especially when using a search engine. 
But they often get close. Close, but no cigar, as far as most sites are 
concerned, since it is rare to find links to similar or related pages.  

Link to:  

...similar products that are a little cheaper or a little more expensive 
than the current product (if you only try to upsell, you will lose trust).

...related products that go well with the current one (but only cross-
sell relevant products; not whatever happens to be overstocked in 
your warehouse - specials are for another part of the site).

...products that differ from the current product in some important 
dimension (for example, link to a color printer if the user is looking 
at a black-and-white printer).

...different versions of the current product (for example, the same 
blouse in yellow) - note that such links may be considered attribute 
manipulation and not true hypertext navigation.

...earlier or later versions of the topic discussed on the page.

...background information, author biographies and lists of other 
articles by the same author.

...a message board or other discussion about the current topic.

...news about the current topic (but not all news).

Hypertext research from the 1980s showed that structure does help 
users navigate. Structure has been under-valued on the Web for four 
reasons:  

...Most sites have miserable information architectures that mirror 
the way the company internally thinks about the content and not the 
way users think about the content. Predictably, users ignore such 
unhelpful structure. 

...Most page designs have hidden the important structural 
information among a flood of irrelevant information (say, links to all 
possible other options), preventing users from identifying the 
structure. 

...All Web browsers have neglected the need to visualize structural 
information. Pre-Web hypertext systems often did this, and the 
research showed that good structural visualizations (not whizzy 3D 
views) helped substantially. 

...Users are so impatient on the Web that they don't take time to 
learn about any individual website and its structure - instead, they 
proceed to the next site.  

Only the last of these four reasons is fundamental. Websites can be 
designed better. And I predict that Internet Explorer version 8.0 will 
be the first good Web browser that actually helps users navigate.  

Even user impatience can be overcome. True, most users will treat 
most sites superficially. But some users will take the time to learn 
some sites, once those sites become worth learning. In the future, it 
will become an important competitive parameter to treat loyal users 
so well that they will want to learn more about the site and to make it 
possible for them to do so. (While maintaining a design that is 
approachable by the larger number of users who just want to visit 
briefly.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *