Re: Navigation Proposal

[Joakim Ziegler <joakim helixcode com>]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:53:28AM -0800, Michael Bernstein wrote:
> Joakim Ziegler wrote:

>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:50:49PM -0800, Michael Bernstein wrote:

>>> This would leave us with four top level categories of
>>> content:
 
>>> * About GNOME
>>> * GNOME Community
>>> * GNOME Foundation
>>> * GNOME Software

>>> Which should be all encompassing, and fairly clear as to
>>> where to look to find what you want. With only four top
>>> level categories, these can be represented by a row of
>>> buttons across the top, and second and third level
>>> navigation can be accomplished with a right- or left-handed
>>> vertical bar.
 
>> While nice in theory, I think this falls into the "too much abstraction"
>> trap. Yes, it's a really nicely topical, logical hierarchy, but people expect
>> stuff like "Development" to be a top level header.
 
> I disagree. I think it's worth not creating a mixed
> noun/verb categorization schema, and you'll actually confuse
> people more if you don't excersize retsraint in this regard.
> If I'm looking for documentation, do I find it under
> 'Software' or under 'Development'?

I've never heard of cases where a "mixed noun/verb categorization schema" has
ever led to problems. Indeed, the stilted terms or overly broad/narrow
ctegories you create by trying to stick to one would likely be a bigger
problem. Remember, even extremely usability tested software, such as
everything coming out of Apple, has top-level menu items like "File", "Edit",
"Tools" and "Window".


>> Remember, we're not aiming for the perfect categorization system here (Dewey
>> Decimal works really well, but it's hell to navigate for people who don't
>> know it), we're aiming for something that's optimal to use. That means as few
>> clicks as possible to the stuff that people use the most.
 
> That comparison's a bit unfair. Dewey decimal attempts to
> categorize all human knowledge, We're just trying to
> categorize all of GNOME. And as far as the 'few clicks as
> possible' goes, you've already noted that quick links and
> in-line text links can give access to items deep within the
> heirarchy.
 
> Also, keep in mind that one of the goals of your
> categorization schema should be maintainability. If you come
> up with new content, it should be immediately obvious and
> crystal clear which topic it falls under, and if you're
> creating a new category in the future, it should be
> immediately obvious whether it's a sub-category of an
> existing topic, of if it's a new top-level category.

This isn't going to happen. No matter how perfect your categorization schema,
there will always be data that doesn't fit. In your four top level
categories, you might have avoided this problem on the top level, because the
categories are so vague, but it'll just come back to haunt you on the level
below. Given a reasonablys malls et of data, like we have, you're not going o
be able to construct a balanced and symmetrical category tree, because you
can't specialize enough without ending up with just one or two documents in
each category.


-- 
Joakim Ziegler - Helix Code web monkey - joakim helixcode com - Radagast IRC
      FIX sysop - free software coder - FIDEL & Conglomerate developer
            http://www.avmaria.com/ - http://www.helixcode.com/