Replies: 7 comments
WebWord Report: A Sitemap on Every Page
Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 01/08/2002 07:52 PM EST
I think JS misses a reason why people don't use site maps even when they are available. Usually, they add no value, so most people's experience is that they're not worth trying except as an absolute last resort. Which is a shame for those sites which have done a good job, but not surprising.
Posted by Alan Fisher @ 01/09/2002 04:03 AM EST
I think JN misses a reason why people don't use site maps even when they are available. Usually, they add no value, so most people's experience is that they're not worth trying except as an absolute last resort. Which is a shame for those sites which have done a good job, but not surprising.
Posted by Alan Fisher @ 01/09/2002 04:03 AM EST
A web site that needs a site map is usually so poorly structured that the user has given up long before looking for a map.
In other words, "If you need this, all hope is already lost."
In the WebWord report, for the site reporting 65% use of its site map, I'd like to know what the attrition rate was. How many users gave up before using the map?
Site maps are a good idea, but need to be listed as a main navigational link on the front page and in your interior navigation bars.
I prefer the term "index" to "map." The common understanding of the word "map" is of a visual graphical layout of a geographic space. The term "index" is akin to the index in the back of a book. Because a site map/index is a listing of links, "index" makes more sense.
Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/09/2002 12:08 PM EST
Jack, I too like "index" versus "map" for exactly the same reason. That is an excellent point. It is also yet another indication that people use words and concepts without thinking about their true meaning.
Posted by John S. Rhodes @ 01/09/2002 01:44 PM EST
I've always struggled with the issue of site maps. For simpler sites they merely reiterate the primary site navigation - at best pointless, at worst disappointing. Larger sites often result in intimidatingly complicated site maps which do little to help novice users.
Some clients want a site map and aren't sure why, yet are barely interested in improving Help and Search sections.
Are site maps mostly attempts to prop up poor navigation? I'm never sure.
The site with a map on every page is interesting, but I think it tells us more about the positioning of links. Users clearly want to click somewhere when they reach the bottom of the long scrolling pages rather than scroll up and find the little links on the left.
It also adds something like 9Kb to every page, which is quite a lot (could insert it via a JavaScript file which would cache I suppose).
Posted by Matt Round @ 01/09/2002 06:26 PM EST
Matt asks: "Are site maps mostly attempts to prop up poor navigation?"
Jack yaks: Two uses for an index that come to mind are:
1. To, as you say, prop up confusing navigation. A safety net of sorts.
2. To provide an alternate means of navigation. For example, if you named the link "A to Z Index" and the user wants to see your job listings, he may consider it easier to go directly to the index and look up "Human Resources" or "Personnel" (or "Jobs" or "Employment" if the list is subject-based).
Wouldn't that be refreshing? No more studying how each site has organized its information. Just look in the damn index to find something!
If you're concerned about users needing something to do at the bottom of your page, simply repeat your navigation links there.
Posted by Jack Schonchin @ 01/09/2002 07:46 PM EST