-
I’d like to talk [about] an amazing creature: people.
-
In life, people are often seeking information.
-
That led to psychologist George Miller to describe people as “informovores”.
-
Informovores try to find and devour information, much like foragers seek and devour food.
-
And both informovores and foragers are trying figure out how to get lots of it quickly.
-
Pete Pirolli, a research scientist at PARC — and his colleagues — has spent more than a decade
-
trying to figure out what features of information resources help or hinder
-
people’s ability to find out what they want.
-
One of the major attributes that informovores use to guide their searching
-
is what we call the “scent” of information:
-
As we browse the web, we’re using cues of the pages that we look at
-
to try and figure out whether we can get to the information we want from where we are,
-
whether it’s trustworthy, whether it’s solving a problem.
-
And we’re also looking at these cues to figure out what options are available to us.
-
If you have a web page and you’d like to know whether the “scent” on the page is poor
-
for the people that come to that page or site, there are several telltale signs:
-
If you watch people use your site, you can see them flail around when they get to a particular page;
-
they don’t know where to go.
-
Another technique — and one that Jared Spool and colleagues
-
have used successfully in user interface engineering — is to look at people’s confidence
-
as to whether they are on the right track, right before and right after they click a link.
-
Before tells you whether the link that you’re looking at is a good one — whether it has high “scent”.
-
And people’s confidence after tells you whether the page that you land on
-
beacons the information that you’re trying to get to.
-
Another great way to tell when people are having trouble
-
with the scent of information in how to follow the trail is the use of the Back button.
-
Lots of use of the Back button — major problems for your navigation.
-
Here’s an example of a menu bar of a web page that I think exhibits particularly low scent.
-
This is the menu bar for the Stanford Federal Credit Union — a bank.
-
To give you a feel of what it looks like [interactively],
-
if you mouse over any of these navigational elements, you’ll get a second level of navigation.
-
However, even with that second layer, this page exhibits many of the scent problems
-
that I think are common for low-scent pages.
-
For starters, the categories aren’t written in terms
-
that I think most of the people that come to the site are familiar with.
-
It’s hard to figure out what’s behind “LoanClick” or “Transact”.
-
This is my bank, and often when I go to the site,
-
I’ve to try several different options before I figure out which one has the particular page I’m looking for.
-
Also, the navigational links on this page are short — there’s only a couple of words.
-
And this combination of jargon by the designers as opposed to user-centred terms and the brevity of the links
-
makes it very difficult to see behind those links.
-
Also, as we see, a lot of the cues that would help me figure out what’s behind “Transact”
-
or “LoanClick” or “Account View”, those are hidden in a secondary layer of navigation.
-
You [of] course can mouse over one at a time and get to them, but it’s relatively slow.
-
And finally, the designers of the site presumably offered icons for each of the menu elements
-
with the intuition that icons make things better — they provide a picture and pictures are good, right?
-
But these icons don’t provide much additional information.
-
While good icons can often improve the usability of a site, generic icons rarely help.
-
Another example of generic icons are the web page icons that you see along the left-hand side of this page here,
-
which is the web site for the HCI class online.
-
The generic globe [icon] doesn’t tell me much about the link, so it doesn’t add any information;
-
those pixels could be better put to use with a more specific icon, or with additional words.
-
Icons do help when they facilitate repeat recognition —
-
If either the first time I come to it, it shows me something that I expect;
-
or if it’s a good reminder for when I return.
-
Icons are also really helpful when you know what something looks like, but not what it’s called —
-
and that could be because it’s a language you’re not familiar with,
-
or it could be because there are multiple different terms, and you may not understand which one is being used in this case.
-
And good icons can also help with redundant coding,
-
because if you can recognize either the picture or the word that goes with the icon,
-
then you’re in business and you can get going,
-
and they can teach you about each other —
-
so I’ll learn what the word means from the “Permit” picture that I might be familiar with,
-
or vice-versa — if I’m familiar with the word, I can learn what the picture is.
-
So how can we improve the scent of links?
-
One of the most effective strategies for improving the scent of your web site
-
is to lengthen the links that you have on the site —
-
As opposed having one short word, add a longer explanation.
-
And when you do this, add specific, recognizable terms — what Jared Spool calls “trigger words” —
-
and not stuff that’s funny, or clever, or is the terminology favoured by the design team but not the users.
-
Long, specific links titles — like 7 or 8 words — not only can help improve the scent of the website,
-
it can help improve the accessibility,
-
because many of your users who’re accessing your site through a screen reader
-
will really value the specificity of those links to be able to understand what’s going on.
-
One example of that is that when the HCI course began, we had a link that I think was called “Grading Policy.”
-
Few people realized that behind that link was where we explained the different tracks of the course:
-
And for good reason: the word “track” was nowhere in the link.
-
After a week of confusion on the forum, we realized this
-
and we’re able to redesign the link to be longer and more specific,
-
and includes multiple different trigger words that might bring people to that page.
-
Another example from the [intranet] HCI class that I teach at Stanford
-
is we had a video where the link had a really short “here” as the only word in the link.
-
After somebody emailed me asking where the video was — and I knew it was on that page —
-
I realized that I could redesign that link, to expand it out to be multiple words;
-
and since redesigning that link to be longer, nobody’s emailed me saying they had any trouble.
-
One of the biggest impediments to improving the scent of navigational elements on a site
-
is that we have a really good general-purpose impulse
-
to try and not put too much cruft on things and make it too long.
-
However, with navigation, often more is better,
-
and a great strategy for effective navigation is what’s called “speaking block navigation.”
-
And this set of examples, collected by Smashing Magazine,
-
provides a good intuition as to what speaking block navigation is.
-
By adding multiple different words — perhaps subheadings that are underneath the structure,
-
or an explanation of what the main word or catchphrase is —
-
that can help users get to the place that they want to go.
-
When you provide links or content on a page, does it matter where on the page you put them?
-
Absolutely!
-
And one way that you can see this is with a number of eye-tracking studies
-
that have been done over the last decade or so.
-
This one is compliments of Ed Cutrell from his research group at Microsoft.
-
And what you can see here is that the places on a page where a user looks most
-
are visualized here in red as a “hot spot,”
-
and places where people look less frequently are in blue colours.
-
The distribution of gaze is remarkable:
-
A huge fraction of people’s time is spent looking at a relatively small portion of the real estate on the screen,
-
and these are habits that we build up and carry across to multiple different websites.
-
Very cleverly, we’d built up a sense of where the good stuff often is,
-
and we ignore where the bad stuff often is.
-
And you can then use this to design for “glanceability.”
-
The Poynter Institute has produced this diagram which shows where, in general, people mostly look,
-
and these results are for English-language web pages —
-
presumably they generalize to most pages that have a left-to-right reading order.
-
A lot of the key stuff is in the top-left — that’s the red area.
-
Then there’s a secondary ring around that.
-
And finally, below the fold and off to the far right is where the lowest priority stuff is.
-
Now these priority areas are obviously going to be genre-dependant
-
and based on an individual user’s expectations;
-
but, as a good heuristic, “top left, more important; as you get lower or further to the right, less important.”
-
So, in short, our prime real estate is above the fold, and it’s in places where people expect to find stuff.
-
So this is going to be where other pages put similar content:
-
If you have pages that your users are familiar with,
-
following the location on screen where they have their navigational elements or prime real estate
-
will help people get used to your site as well.
-
And definitely don’t put the navigational stuff where people expect to see ads,
-
because, by now, many people mostly ignore whatever locations they think is going to be advertising.
-
While your prime real estate is above the fold,
-
people are more than happy to scroll if they think that they’re going to see something that’s worthwhile.
-
Often, when there’s valuable information below the fold that people don’t see,
-
it’s because the stuff above the fold didn’t look very good;
-
People assume you’re putting your best stuff there.
-
So, if that’s your best stuff, whatever is got to be below that, that can’t be so good.
-
But if you have lots of great content up top, people will infer that there’s even more further down.
-
And many of the most popular sites on the web see users scroll pretty significantly.
-
Usability expert Jakob Nielsen conducted a study of how people read online,
-
and I can share with you the summary of his results: “They don’t.”
-
Of course there are times where we sit down and read a lengthy article online —
-
that’s not exactly what we’re talking about here.
-
We’re talking about general-purpose web browsing, when we’re fishing around for information,
-
and in these cases, it’s extremely rare to find that people will spend a significant amount of time on one site.
-
Often what you’ll see is that people have a number of tabs open simultaneously,
-
and they’re even doing totally unrelated tasks simultaneously:
-
So they may search for a while.
-
After a minute or two, email gets exciting; go to that.
-
Come back, look across multiple different sites at once, and all of this time they’re trying to find relevant information.
-
So what this means is that the successful sites are the ones that support this interlaced browsing
-
as effectively as is possible by bubbling up the most important stuff.
-
And Jakob Nielsen was able to demonstrate the effects of taking this into account
-
by changing the writing strategy and then measuring the impact on usability.
-
Jakob Nielsen tried three separate techniques to improve the usability of these websites —
-
making the text more concise;
-
making it more scannable by using subheadings, bulleted lists, and short paragraphs;
-
and using more objective language as opposed to what Nielsen calls “marketese.”
-
And what he found was that the effects on the user experience were really significant.
-
The good news is that all of these strategies are really straightforward.
-
And if you’d like to learn more about improving the navigation of websites,
-
I highly recommend these three resources shown here.