|
Convenient web based access to our favorite web design Usenet groups
|
 |
This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
| Author |
| Thread |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 10-02-04 - 05:23 PM 
|
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:31:58 -0400 in alt.html.critique, Neal wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 21:52:16 -0400, Rick Pasotto
> <rickpasotto@chi.news.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
> I do this:
>
> 1) Keep the list identical on all pages. With 12 total links, in my
> opinion yours is too long. Get it to 7 or less by combining some.
Easier said than done. Combine which? If there were distinct sections of
the site, then sure, but really there're not. Certainly the three
'events' items could be combined, but then they would just need to be
split out elsewhere. Why not direct access?
Why is 12 too many? One of the advantages of a side menu bar is that you
are not limited to a small number of items like you would be if they
were horizontal. Can you point to an article that discusses why 12 is
too many but seven would be ok?
> 2) Assign a class or id to the list item for the current page. Remove
> the anchor tags. Style this class or id differently than the other
> list items - a different color, perhaps.
That's what I've done on other sites.
> 3) As you use PHP, you could write something which includes one or
> another version of the link whether or not the URL matches the current
> document's name. So the link to past.php would be a link unless the
> current document is past.php, in which case it is unlinked and styled
> to contrast.
Why have a non-functional menu item?
--
"Today I am more than ever frightened. I wish it would dawn upon engineers
that, in order to be an engineer, it is not enough to be an engineer."
-- Jose Ortega y Gasset
Rick Pasotto rick@niof.net http://www.niof.net
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-02-04 - 05:23 PM
|
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 05:44:04 -0400, Rick Pasotto
<rickpasotto@chi.news.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:31:58 -0400 in alt.html.critique, Neal wrote:
>
> Easier said than done. Combine which? If there were distinct sections of
> the site, then sure, but really there're not. Certainly the three
> 'events' items could be combined, but then they would just need to be
> split out elsewhere. Why not direct access?
>
> Why is 12 too many? One of the advantages of a side menu bar is that you
> are not limited to a small number of items like you would be if they
> were horizontal. Can you point to an article that discusses why 12 is
> too many but seven would be ok?
First, it's my opinion. It happens to be based on research that suggests
that seven items is the most the average person can remember. You can feel
free to accept this or deny it, I've never characterized the number of
links on your page as an error. But let me explain where this comes from.
Think of your TV or cable or DVD remote. Which is the easiest to operate?
Likely, it's the one with the least buttons you regularly use. Many
studies have shown that if the number of choices is seven or lower, it's
much easier for a user to operate the interface. More options than this,
the more difficult it is to organize these choices in your mind.
Combining choices can be done with re-thinking the division of the site,
or with finding two sections which have something in common (example: a
site with separate "about us", "meet the staff" and "our CEO" could put
all these under an "about" category).
If a user clicks an "events" tab, they get to an explanation page which
allows access to the various events pages. Any of these can be bookmarked
by the user if direct access is desired.
Think of how, say, the Windows help section works. You get a list of
options, and many of them lead to more options. If all the options were
listed in a long list, you'd never find anything. Grouping elements which
can coexist under a common category is nearly always the best choice -
until we get to about 7, plus or minus, choices.
>
> Why have a non-functional menu item?
First, it's sensless to have a menu item link to the current page - and
it's even harmful to usability. It can serve to confuse users, who are
thinking they are going somewhere new, and they don't.
Also, the dead item serves as a placeholder in the menu. This way, the
menu is identical on each page. The user can remember where the items are,
they need not study the links to find their choice. Events might always be
second from the top, and that would be consistent on each page.
The goal is making it easier for the user. If the user sees the same list
of menu links all the time, they can rely on it and be more comfortable
browsing the site. The fact that one is visually contrasting signals that
there is something special - and if the user doesn't see that it's the
item representing their current location, an attempt to click will prove
this.
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-03-04 - 12:16 AM
|
The Doormouse wrote:
> Rick Pasotto <rickpasotto@chi.news.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Not so. It is very functional from a coding standpoint, and it is
> *consistent*. Consistency is very important. Once you start "hiding" menu
> options, you begin to confuse your users.
To the average user, a page that links to itself is just as confusing as
a missing link, maybe more so. It's made Nielsen's top 10 design
mistakes often enough. This is a usability issue, not a development one.
I do agree with you, though I haven't seen any studies on this, that you
should not eliminate items from a standard navigation menu. When you do,
the remaining items get jumbled around and the poor user has to try to
figure out where things are anew on every page. I've been on the losing
end of that one often enough, for sure. :( I curse people who do this.
IMNSHO, best practice is every menu item on every page, just deactivate
the link for the current page. I usually also highlight the item for the
current page in some way (bold font, different color, whatever) to give
the visitor a more obvious visual clue where they are in the scheme of
things. I wish more sites did something like that.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
|
|
|
| [
Post Follow-Up to this message ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:34 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
