One skill of a professional web designer: Piercing information clutter and showing visitors your best content with findability.
It’s no secret that we’re bombarded with information. The internet is the epitome of information flooding. Take for example a default WordPress install. You have one post. You can get to it via the linked title, the date archive link, the category link, the tag link, the comment link or searching for it.
That’s at least six different ways to get to one place; and the clutter is magnified even more when you create additional posts.
Think About Usability
Create too many paths and your site turns into a maze.
There is a strong pull to include every possible hyper-route—to make sure every potential action is covered so it’s available in case it’s needed.
It’s a tempting thought, what if someone wants to see what I wrote about this subject? So the category links are included. What about quick topic browsing? The tags go in there. I want people to see how long I’ve been blogging. Now there are thirty monthly archive links.
And on and on.
However, if you make everything findable then
nothing is.
Here are a few things to consider:
- When was the last time you went to a site and arbitrarily clicked on a category link?
- How often do you read through a tag cloud?
- When did you last click a link on someone’s blog that read August 2007, or March 2006?
Now, on the contrary, when was the last time you went to a site and followed a link that stood out from the content around it? Usually a designer (or site owner) placed it there and made it stand out for a reason: They want people to find it.
Create Value
Help people find your best content that they don’t yet know about.
Everyone knows how to get to that one post you wrote in June of last year, don’t help people find that, they already know how. Help people find that great article you wrote on typography, or that popular WordPress theme you created. Don’t assume visitors will find your best content, lead them to it.
Further reading:
On clutter: http://www.bigcontrarian.com/2008/06/27/debris/
On findability: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/findabilityorphan
Commentary
Really great article. I make websites for a lot of people who think everything needs to be featured and everything needs to link to everything. I love what you wrote: “If you make everything findable then
nothing is.”
If anything is going to stand out, by definition, a lot of things are going to have to stand back.
Thanks.
Well said, David. I have found myself designing my sites with less and less “clutter” and as minimal as possible. My recent redesign of my family website is an attempt to put the content first and foremost.
Andrew: Thanks, and stay strong!
Will: Thanks. I like the family site, and that is one huge owl!
Thanks David. The owl was huge. At least as big as a large cat!
This is a really helpful post. Maybe that’s why you do this for a living.
Well, you do take it to the minimalist extreme, and that’s a very cool feel to some. Sometimes I’m in the mood for that, too. The eyes and mind get crazy with all the clutter online, I agree.
However, I think of sites like I think of guitars in a way. Redundancy exists for reasons. A Barred A chord will sound slightly different than an Open A, though they are the same collection of notes. I can play an A chord in various places on one fret. Some like the barred because they strum very hard and want to be able to mute it on the upstroke, or just have it sound solid. Some have weaker or smaller hands. Some love the sustain on an open chord. One will appeal to one person for various reasons over another form. There are very minimalist guitars, too, with almost no body and just a neck and strings. They look cool, but why haven’t they caught on in a major way? Okay, it’s not a perfect analogy, I admit.
But the thought exercise above, which places “how I would do things” doesn’t really work for me, because I am not everyone. Some people scan certain parts of a page more, some love tag clouds. I don’t. But some do. And mostly, I disagree with “nothing is findable.” I really do think redundancy is important out here.
However, that doesn’t mean I totally disagree with your thesis. I think in essence, what you are saying has a lot of truth. As an aesthetic.
But take, for example, one of the ways in which I altered Trevelian Way. There were no nav links above the post. Which makes the blog smaller right away. When people land on your site and like reading you they want to read more. They look around to read more, but they may not be as savvy or astute as one could imagine. (Some older readers newer to the ‘Net like to read me, too. And you should hear some of the things I’ve heard from some of them. You and I take a whole lot for granted, being web savvy. But some need things very obvious. I don’t want to shut the dooron them.)
I like the blog to connect in various ways so people can just float around in their own fashion until they find what they like. The nav links as-is were part of some pop-up float thing that was out of the way of someone’s eyes, and further to reach to, and involved an extra step. I understand the designer’s urge to keep things very very simple. But to me, that choice was not a good one. Because in these decisions I also like to keep in mind the current vocabulary of the net. And currently, we expect to see those links above a post. If they are not there, someone can just bounce out. If they have to work too hard they may just bounce out. I want my writing to be there for not just tech-savvy people, but those who can’t find a link unless it’s right in front of them, too. Usually. I mean I won’t clutter my blog TOO much with concessions. But some are necessary.
Perhaps ultimately a lot of it comes down to priorities of the owner. Different agendas will drive different decisions.
Nice article.
“When was the last time you went to a site and arbitrarily clicked on a category link?
How often do you read through a tag cloud?”
I don’t think I’ve ever done that? Is something wrong with me?
Danny: Ha! Glad it helped.
N: Good points. I think our main point of disagreement distills to guiding the user vs. letting the user float around. Would you agree with that? (Even though I think the two can still work together in a way.)
There is more risk with the former, as you point out, but I think overall it can be the most powerful if properly executed. (I know that’s an opinion with no data, etc. to back it up, so maybe I’ll elaborate in another post… No promises though!)
I like how you phrase the “current vocabulary of the web” but you have to approach that method with caution. Think of the whole “web 2.0″ craze, how a concept that wasn’t even design related influenced a style that was (blindly?) applied to a plethora of sites. Just because everybody else is doing it doesn’t make it right.
I definitely agree with your last sentence: Different agendas will drive different decisions.
Thanks for adding to the discussion.
Ah, okay. That’s a good point. You are right…there is certainly something to guiding the user by only providing the means to travel your path.
I still think it assumes too much…how can we be certain a person will react to stimulus A the way you imagine…but there are answers to that I suppose. The main thing is that yes, I see that we are talking about two things. And anyway, I guess that’s why people have different senses of aesthetic it all, eh?
You are right about the web being ephemeral. Taking that further, sometimes new (initially annoying) design even takes the web’s “vocabulary” into a new direction.
I wasn’t so much talking about “everyone doing it” as a justification for continuing it…more like I didn’t want to unduly frustrate people who were looking for the easiest way to turn a corner to get to the next nugget of blogliciousness.
Which brings us back into agreement with the “last sentence” once again. And it is true that trend drives too much mediocrity or unnecessary ballast.
Glad to talk about this, thanks. I always enjoy thrashing out thought with people who are thoughtful. And glad you weren’t reactive about my comment on your design…which felt kind of rude to me when I thought about it later. Didn’t mean it that way. I just get talking fast sometimes.
peace
Stefson: Ha! I don’t think so.