Re: Re: Navigation Proposal

["rpmuldoon students wisc edu" <rpmuldoon students wisc edu>]

I'm just going to add my (Agreeing) comments below....

On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 09:31:56PM -0800, Michael Bernstein wrote:

>This is getting very, very long, so I'm going to just cut and >summarize/answer.

>Basically, there are two separate issues here, which I think we're >confusing
>a little. First of all, there's the discussion of whether or not we should
>use a hybrid task/category scheme, or a pure scheme. Secondly, there's the
>issue of four top-level categories being too few, in my opinion.

>Now, for the hybrid versus pure issue, sure, it's fine to have a pure >schema,
>if it's possible, and doesn't deform an otherwise logical tree. For >instance,
>you've created four top level categories which seem to be able to hold all
>the information we have on the site. But is it possible to continue with a
>pure schema on the second level of navigation? How deep will the tree be >with this method versus a hybrid schema? How wide?

I agree. The doubt that a completely pure navigation structure is possible all the way through the site.  And if it is, it will probably be at the cost of usability, which is what you're wanting to preserve.

>I'd argue that particularly since hybrid schemas are so common on the web,
>people are used to them, and don't have to expel much mental effort to >figure
>them out. As a thought experiment, take your four categories and turn two >of
>them into tasks (pretty easy, just put a verb in front of the noun, like
>"Learn about the GNOME Foundation"). It's not much harder to figure out
>(ignoring that the label is long and unwieldy). It seems to me that the
>usability difference is vastly larger from adjusting the boundaries between
>categories than it is when adjusting between hybrid and non-hybrid schemas.

I agree.  It was stated that hybrid schemes are common.....so people are already used to it.

>As for your four categories, yes, they're mutually exclusive, and yes, they
>cover all the topics. But the fact that there are only four of them >suggests
>to me that they would need rethinking and/or splitting up. As they are,
>they'd result in at least three more levels of navigation under them, since
>they're so broad and abstract.

This is my main gripe - 4 is definitely too few.  10 was too much.  I wouldn't go for more than 7, but I think that my 6 sections work pretty well.  I'm sure that they can be refined more, but I think that it should be what we're working with (at least for the sake of getting something done).  4 sections will require too many extra clicks to get at actual content.  We shouldn't need more than 2 or 3 clicks to get to everything.  Too few sections also means more information goes in each section.  That ends up being a problem of information overload - we want to provide bite-sized pieces, not slabs of information.  It is more usable to have a moderate number of sections, each of which only have a moderate number of subsections.  If you do in either direction, you are going to end up with too much information somewhere.  We should avoid that.

    --Ryan




-------------------------------------------------------------------
This message has been posted from Mail2Web http://www.mail2web.com/
Web Hosting for $9.95 per month! Visit: http://www.yourhosting.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------