Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Patrick Harris
What do you think the function of navigation is, and what types of navigation tend to be succesful? For instance, css drop-down navigation has the advantage of giving quick links to the second or third level of a site, but the disadvantages of having hidden information (that appears when you mouse over), information overload (the drop-downs might link to 20 or more sections), and be physically difficult to mouse through (a javascript delay that keeps the menu displayed for a second or two when the mouse leaves it can help usability).
Should there be more than one way to navigate to the same place on a site? A List Apart’s “Topics” navigation allows this, but unlike the global navigation, provides no feedback (when you are in the “design” section, the “design” link looks like the other links, and even stays clickable).
It is easy to underestimate the trauma of navigating even an excellently designed site. You provided such clarity of thought in your home page article, I’d be very interested in your ideas on the goals of a site’s navigation!
What do you think the function of navigation is, and what types of navigation tend to be succesful?
My preferred method, with a large multi-layered site, would be to have the navigation for the whole site (or at least for the top 2 levels, maybe 3) in nested lists. Make these into popup menus with CSS and JS to back it up.
Then – this is where it gets clever – pull the current section out of the dropdown altogether with an id=“currentsection” on the sub-<ul>, and position it on the page so that it is always there.
That way, even for people who are unable to use the dropdown menus, they can navigate to the main page in each section and then follow a link from a static menu to pages within that section. And the only thing you have to do is to move the id=“currentsection” on each page – everything else stays exactly the same across the whole site.
This also helps make it clear to visitors where they are on the site.
It’s funny you mention flock as a site with a good homepage, because the few times I checked the site out, I did have the feeling of ‘what IS this thing?’?
The site says it’s a browser. Ok. Then it is stated that it offers tools, ok. But what are those tools? What can I do with them? Why is flock better then the next thing? These questions aren’t being answered right away, except in very broad and vague terms.
Thank you for the nice article. I’ve even translated it into Russian, so that many non-english speaking people can read it.
Those who are interested may read it at “validator.ru”:http://validator.ru/content/view/37/33/
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Amanda Werhane
This will be helpful for sharing with the Head of Computer Services (and website administrator) where I work. He considers himself a big proponent of Web 2.0, and I thought I was, too.
But now he’s using our pre-roll-out user studies to argue against including a news section on the homepage, because users didn’t specifically ask for a news section. This sounds like faulty logic (and bad marketing) to me. I mean, they probably didn’t ask for a company logo, either, but of course we have one.
I agree with the principal of giving ‘em what they ask for, but should there be no room at all for giving ‘em what we’d like them to KNOW they can ask for (new products, services, staff expertise)?
Personally, I like to work on the homepage iteratively. But it’s good to hear the methodologies used by others. User experience is something every web designer needs to bare in mind through the page design process!
Just something I would like to add though, when your talking about designing internal pages and working your way out it sounds pretty ‘high level’. I think a successful web design always starts with good information architecture. If you can keep the content on a leash and have a basic sitemap in mind it makes designing a great-usable site that much easier! ;)
Great article, Derek. As for the earlier comments about how to convince the boss… I think it’s usually better to let someone else do the convincing.
Try running some cheap and dirty usability tests, and get them on videotape. Bosses can easily dismiss “expert opinions”, but when they’re presented with evidence of real users, stumped by an interface, it’s hard for them to argue.
Great article. I would also mention that home page content is also important. Include only the most relevant, new and persuasive items, and update often.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Weixi Yen
Designing the site backwards from the inner pages and finishing with the homepage is a great idea. The best part of the article was actually the comment on user traffic. It’s pretty much true across the board in any large web site.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
John Dunagan
In passing, Derek, you implied that Google had ‘gotten away with’ a bad home page, because it wasn’t apparent from the page design itself what Google was about.
Is that accurate? And if so, do you still think so? And if you still think so, what elements of it seem counter-intuitive?
i just followed one of the author’s links to see a great page in action and came across his http://jpgmag.com/ page that instantly confused me as to what it is and how to use it. after 10 long seconds of scanning the page, i left it forever.
Good article, Derek. Just picked it up from creativepro.com. I have a question. Here is our URL: www.faithefc.com. Note what I call the non-Home Page Home Page. This was originally our home page: www.faithefc.com/index2.html. I know the site is not pretty, but there are political reasons for that ;>). But it’s not a bad site. However, in an attempt to show that our church is “with the times,” another staff member created the Flash site and the opening page to give visitors a choice. I don’t like the opening page, and I think the Flash site is less informative, and the flashing clouds, which have nothing to do with our church, are distracting. I think the original home page is more in keeping with your four goals. Honest opinion? Yes, I am the web master, but there are politics and conflicting philosophies involved.
Thanks to all who help, Alan.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Ron Whitman
So I read this article about a year or so ago and lived by it. Then I got a massive web application project and learned that the “design backwards” approach is probably one of the worst pieces of advice I’ve ever followed. Basically, this logic completely screwed me on a project..
What happens is the team started designing page pieces instead of concentrating on the user experience and general look and feel, so when we returned to the home page we were making it out of boring little component parts designed for forms and copy blocks. We got designed into a corner and the client could tell.
This ended up making the home page ugly and dull, so we wound up designing it differently from the rest of the site, causing a horrible ripple effect of design inconsistency across the board. We had to go back and change so much of the design to account for this.
Use this technique with caution. My advice, design the home page first, but with the intention of coming back to it with a final sweep after the core of the site is completed.
I came across this article after completing a redesign of our site, and agree with so much of what is written. The previous design (and copy) had dated, and upon reflection, the copy was very fluffy, and it was difficult to discern exactly what it was we were offering. The decision looks to be stating very obviously our main product, and mentioning the others, with a link through to an ‘about us’ page.
I find the biggest issue is targeting to potential customers, instead of to people like ourselves. Once the page has received some much needed attention, we’ll be running it past people in our target market to see what they think.
I think the best homepage is simple, informative and with just a few links, nothign messy and then having a structured heirarchy to the rest of the site to guide the user to the desired information, like this haha http://www.bigmediadesign.com
I stumbled across this article, and found it to be a pretty neat way of approaching web design. It’s always interesting to hear how others approach design projects, – in my opinion, there’s no right or wrong, but it’s enjoyable to try other methods out and see how they work for you.
45 Reader Comments
Back to the ArticlePatrick Harris
I’d be very interested in a follow up article on navigation.
Derek Powazek
Thanks for all the fabulous comments, everyone!
Patrick, what about navigation? Anything in particular?
Patrick Harris
What do you think the function of navigation is, and what types of navigation tend to be succesful? For instance, css drop-down navigation has the advantage of giving quick links to the second or third level of a site, but the disadvantages of having hidden information (that appears when you mouse over), information overload (the drop-downs might link to 20 or more sections), and be physically difficult to mouse through (a javascript delay that keeps the menu displayed for a second or two when the mouse leaves it can help usability).
Should there be more than one way to navigate to the same place on a site? A List Apart’s “Topics” navigation allows this, but unlike the global navigation, provides no feedback (when you are in the “design” section, the “design” link looks like the other links, and even stays clickable).
It is easy to underestimate the trauma of navigating even an excellently designed site. You provided such clarity of thought in your home page article, I’d be very interested in your ideas on the goals of a site’s navigation!
Chris Conroy
We just went through a redesign of our site. Message was critical to us and the homepage had to convey a feeling about our company.
I’d be interested to hear what others think of the design and message: www.heartwoodmedia.com
Stephen Down
My preferred method, with a large multi-layered site, would be to have the navigation for the whole site (or at least for the top 2 levels, maybe 3) in nested lists. Make these into popup menus with CSS and JS to back it up.
Then – this is where it gets clever – pull the current section out of the dropdown altogether with an id=“currentsection” on the sub-<ul>, and position it on the page so that it is always there.
That way, even for people who are unable to use the dropdown menus, they can navigate to the main page in each section and then follow a link from a static menu to pages within that section. And the only thing you have to do is to move the id=“currentsection” on each page – everything else stays exactly the same across the whole site.
This also helps make it clear to visitors where they are on the site.
Will Mooore
“hit’s them all”:http://odeo.com
Okke Formsma
It’s funny you mention flock as a site with a good homepage, because the few times I checked the site out, I did have the feeling of ‘what IS this thing?’?
The site says it’s a browser. Ok. Then it is stated that it offers tools, ok. But what are those tools? What can I do with them? Why is flock better then the next thing? These questions aren’t being answered right away, except in very broad and vague terms.
Good article otherwise :)
Alex Balaboshko
Thank you for the nice article. I’ve even translated it into Russian, so that many non-english speaking people can read it.
Those who are interested may read it at “validator.ru”:http://validator.ru/content/view/37/33/
Amanda Werhane
This will be helpful for sharing with the Head of Computer Services (and website administrator) where I work. He considers himself a big proponent of Web 2.0, and I thought I was, too.
But now he’s using our pre-roll-out user studies to argue against including a news section on the homepage, because users didn’t specifically ask for a news section. This sounds like faulty logic (and bad marketing) to me. I mean, they probably didn’t ask for a company logo, either, but of course we have one.
I agree with the principal of giving ‘em what they ask for, but should there be no room at all for giving ‘em what we’d like them to KNOW they can ask for (new products, services, staff expertise)?
Richard Lee
Nice article Derek.
Personally, I like to work on the homepage iteratively. But it’s good to hear the methodologies used by others. User experience is something every web designer needs to bare in mind through the page design process!
Just something I would like to add though, when your talking about designing internal pages and working your way out it sounds pretty ‘high level’. I think a successful web design always starts with good information architecture. If you can keep the content on a leash and have a basic sitemap in mind it makes designing a great-usable site that much easier! ;)
Michael Straker
Great article, Derek. As for the earlier comments about how to convince the boss… I think it’s usually better to let someone else do the convincing.
Try running some cheap and dirty usability tests, and get them on videotape. Bosses can easily dismiss “expert opinions”, but when they’re presented with evidence of real users, stumped by an interface, it’s hard for them to argue.
Stuart Matthews
Great article. I would also mention that home page content is also important. Include only the most relevant, new and persuasive items, and update often.
Weixi Yen
Designing the site backwards from the inner pages and finishing with the homepage is a great idea. The best part of the article was actually the comment on user traffic. It’s pretty much true across the board in any large web site.
John Dunagan
In passing, Derek, you implied that Google had ‘gotten away with’ a bad home page, because it wasn’t apparent from the page design itself what Google was about.
Is that accurate? And if so, do you still think so? And if you still think so, what elements of it seem counter-intuitive?
Ken L
i just followed one of the author’s links to see a great page in action and came across his http://jpgmag.com/ page that instantly confused me as to what it is and how to use it. after 10 long seconds of scanning the page, i left it forever.
krishnamoorthy manickam
Thanks… this is great experience for me. Already we know the importance of user experience. But your article give more importance to the home page.
Best US UK Poker Sites Review
i thought this was a great article and if you need quality online casino, bingo or poker reviews take a look at http://www.online-casinos.co.uk
Mugunthan ramasamy
Highlight the important things and make to read easy…
More highlight for homepage.
ismail kirbas
I think it’s really useful article, many thanx
Alan Allegra
Good article, Derek. Just picked it up from creativepro.com. I have a question. Here is our URL: www.faithefc.com. Note what I call the non-Home Page Home Page. This was originally our home page: www.faithefc.com/index2.html. I know the site is not pretty, but there are political reasons for that ;>). But it’s not a bad site. However, in an attempt to show that our church is “with the times,” another staff member created the Flash site and the opening page to give visitors a choice. I don’t like the opening page, and I think the Flash site is less informative, and the flashing clouds, which have nothing to do with our church, are distracting. I think the original home page is more in keeping with your four goals. Honest opinion? Yes, I am the web master, but there are politics and conflicting philosophies involved.
Thanks to all who help, Alan.
Ron Whitman
So I read this article about a year or so ago and lived by it. Then I got a massive web application project and learned that the “design backwards” approach is probably one of the worst pieces of advice I’ve ever followed. Basically, this logic completely screwed me on a project..
What happens is the team started designing page pieces instead of concentrating on the user experience and general look and feel, so when we returned to the home page we were making it out of boring little component parts designed for forms and copy blocks. We got designed into a corner and the client could tell.
This ended up making the home page ugly and dull, so we wound up designing it differently from the rest of the site, causing a horrible ripple effect of design inconsistency across the board. We had to go back and change so much of the design to account for this.
Use this technique with caution. My advice, design the home page first, but with the intention of coming back to it with a final sweep after the core of the site is completed.
Karl Hardisty
I came across this article after completing a redesign of our site, and agree with so much of what is written. The previous design (and copy) had dated, and upon reflection, the copy was very fluffy, and it was difficult to discern exactly what it was we were offering. The decision looks to be stating very obviously our main product, and mentioning the others, with a link through to an ‘about us’ page.
I find the biggest issue is targeting to potential customers, instead of to people like ourselves. Once the page has received some much needed attention, we’ll be running it past people in our target market to see what they think.
شباب ليبيا
thank you
Matt Martin
I think the best homepage is simple, informative and with just a few links, nothign messy and then having a structured heirarchy to the rest of the site to guide the user to the desired information, like this haha http://www.bigmediadesign.com
Graphic Design by Zulu
I stumbled across this article, and found it to be a pretty neat way of approaching web design. It’s always interesting to hear how others approach design projects, – in my opinion, there’s no right or wrong, but it’s enjoyable to try other methods out and see how they work for you.