Information foraging theory* gives
us a useful analogy for explaining user behavior when searching
for information: much as they might in a forest, users try to
follow the scent of their prey. On the web, this scent takes
the form of visual clues, for the most part links displayed either
in navigation panels or within the content area of each page.
A central tenant of this theory is that users attempt to maximize
the gain of useful information while minimizing the cost of their
effort in obtaining it. Much of this can be seen by observing
users performing information-gathering tasks during usability
testing: each page is examined for clues of the trail where the
information scent is strongest. If there are too many false clues,
users perceive that the cost of continuing is too high and they
adopt another strategy such as using a search facility, site
map or abandoning the current site altogether.
Figure 1, the two main types of popup menus
An interesting aspect of the foraging model is that it implies
a navigation-as-a-journey metaphor. This was certainly true in
the early evolution of the web: users arrived at a page, sniffed
out the trail and moved on to another page. If the trail went
cold, users would follow their tracks back to the point where
indecision first took hold. Naturally, this meant a lot of navigation,
page loading and scanning by users which lead to an increased
effort in obtaining information. But there is another approach – currently
shunned by many in usability circles – which offers some
real benefits in the design of complex sites. Popup menus (dropdown
and flyout are the most common varieties, shown in Figure 1)
allow users to navigate with reduced effort and can actually
improve the usability of a site, especially when considered along
side some of the alternatives. Here are just a few of the issues
that the committed avoidance of popup menus can raise:
- Running battles between navigation panels and content
- A surfeit of links in an attempt to expose the sites entire
navigation structure
- Cramped navigation with menu items split over multiple lines
or requiring horizontal scrolling
- Small menu fonts that are both hard to read and to select
- Difficult-to-use expand and collapse menu trees, with some
implementations requiring a page load for each operation
- Vertical scrolling to reach navigation
By comparison, popup menus can have real advantages:
- Less screen space needed – menus only pop up when
activated
- Better context for users – categories can be viewed
in full
- Exploration without navigation – not stuck with
the navigation-as-a-journey metaphor
These are all pretty substantial benefits, but the last point
is in a class of its own. If users can decide where they need
to go just by looking at a menu, their effort in finding information
is substantially reduced. It also means they do not have to retrace
their steps in order to recover from a lost trail. Note that
I am not suggesting that we abandon the idea of journey altogether,
but that users now have a choice: experienced users can hop from
one branch to another in the hierarchical tree without the tedious
linear navigation that a journey requires. (Of course this can
already be done to a limited extent with “breadcrumb trail” navigation
of the form
Home > Level 1 > Level 2 … Level n > This Page
But only up the tree – towards the home page – not
down.) Users who prefer to walk the tree page by page still can.
What about usability and accessibility? There are plenty of
opportunities to make popup menus difficult or impossible to
use for some audiences. However, these issues can be effectively
resolved with careful design:
- Avoid “cascading” menus. Although these are
familiar to Windows users – particularly through the
desktop Start button – they require levels of manual
dexterity more normally associated with the game of billiards.
- Do not make the menus too small. Popup menus are only on
the screen for a short while and it usually does not matter
if they obscure the underlying page. Make the menu text large
enough to be read comfortably by your whole user population.
This will make items easier to select too.
- Maintain a sense of the journey path by including a breadcrumb
navigation line (as discussed earlier) on all pages. You may
be tempted to question the need for this but bear in mind that
many pages will be reached via external search engines.
- Make sure that your menus will work with older browsers
and assistive technologies such as screen readers. In most
you will need separate pages to present the contents of the
popups as static HTML. This is illustrated in Figures 2 and
3. Figure 2 shows a popup menu for Learning Tools from the
Microsoft site. If users click on the Learning Tools heading
itself, the reach a content page displaying the same links
in simple HTML.
Figure 2 , Learning Tools popup menu from www.microsoft.com
Figure 3 , Learning Tools static menu page
- Finally, maintain a sense of location. If your menu headings
are relatively constant throughout a site, highlight the one
that is relevant to the current page.
I know that for the usability-conscious being told to use popup
menus sounds a little counter-intuitive. But the technology is
now fairly mature and web users are more sophisticated then they
were when dynamic menus first appeared. Popup menus do have
a place in the web usability toolbox.
Footnote
*See the
Xerox Parc web site at http://www2.parc.com/istl/projects/uir/publications/project/index.html#cs-if for
a list of relevant citations by Stuart Card, Peter Pirolli and
others.
The Author
William Hudson is principal consultant for Syntagm Ltd, based
near Oxford in the UK. His experience ranges from firmware to
desktop applications, but he started by writing interactive software
in the early 1970's. For the past ten years his focus has been
user interface design, object-oriented design and HCI.
Other free articles on user-centred design: www.syntagm.co.uk/design/articles.htm
© 2001-2005
ACM. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here
by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution.
The definitive version was published in interactions,
{Volume 11, Issue 1, January-February 2004} http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/962342.962360
|