RE: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Hi lib Please don't leave: this list needs all the polite members it can get! I work for a large government organisation using a CMS to publish to an intranet and an internet site. We do have a couple of groups that don't use the CMS for various historical reasons, and in the past had more. This does cause headaches, because (among other things) we have other people saying 'why can't we do xyz, when that group over there does it' and the answer is 'because the CMS (as set up) can't handle it and you don't get out of using the corporate solution just because you want to be different'. On the other hand, the CMS is very restrictive and produces truly horrible code; I can easily understand anyone wanting to stay away from it. You've raised an interesting question about breadcrumbs: do they show structure or a path through the site? I have yet to find one that really did show a user how they reached that point, UNLESS they followed a neat path through the hierarchy. Most show where a particular page fits within the structure of the site; this may or may not be reflected in a directory structure. Even in an intranet, an information architecture that reflects the organisation's structure is probably not the most useful. I think it was in a Gerry McGovern article I read the assertion that most people within organisations believed that the intranet should be organised by topics or tasks EXCEPT their own area, which of course should be kept together. Given the extra information you've provided, I can certainly agree that there is little or no benefit to your users in adding a line of breadcrumbs to the top of the page. Elizabeth Spiegel Web editing 0409 986 158 GPO Box 729, Hobart TAS 7001 www.spiegelweb.com.au -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of libwebdev Sent: Tuesday, 10 June 2008 11:38 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability Wow. Make a genuine enquiry, and get this. I see this list is living up to its reputation for rudeness that I was warned about before I joined. I asked for opinions on the use of breadcrumbs for the reason I stated: because I was under the impression that they showed the user's path to the current page, and the ones we're being urged to employ simply show organisational structure. I even asked "Am I wrong?", and was prepared to take the information on board if organisational structure as breadcrumbs was considered acceptable. Some people have been courteous enough to express their views on the matter, and I thank them very much for that. They seemed perfectly capable of doing so without reading non-existant motives into my question. I'm not interested in gathering "guru" evidence to support my own view. Our webmaster would not be the slightest bit interested in anything this group has to say, what with the CMS-driven invalid muck with URLs that look like mathematical formulas that he cranks out. @Anton We are permitted, with good grace and with genuine offers of help if we need it, to have our site reside outside the CMS. I know for a fact that when someone did ask "why is the library outside the CMS?", the webmaster told them "because they can do it themselves". He's fine with it. It's "people like me" who get thanked on a daily basis for having an intuitive, fast-loading, accessible, usable web site ... "thank goodness you're not in with the rest of them". ... "your site is better and so much easier to use". Web standards and interoperability?? The webmaster gets a distinct deer-in-the-headlights look on his face when I utter words such as those. That is why we're out of it and will stay out of it until the organisation reuqests that we join. Incidentally, it appears I was mistaken in my original post: the breadcrumb trail will *not* include the current page, but will appear like so (on 200+ pages): Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library This seems even less effective than I originally thought. Clinical Services have nothing to do with us, and we have nothing to do with them, and we have a clear link back to the parent org on every page of our site. We used to be under IT, then under Executive. It changes all the time because they don't know where we fit. I know our user-base, and they are simply NOT going to say "oh, now I've finished with the library site, I think I'll just pop up to Clinical Services". They use our site for reasons completely unrelated to the department above us, and indeed that of our parent org. I will, however, consider carefully the comments of those who offered their views on this type of breadcrumb usage. I don't particularly enjoy being abused by strangers for posting an honest question,
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Lib, I don't think you should leave the list over one person's comments if you are benefiting from other people's feedback. Libraries probably shouldn't fit under individual departments, but under the organisation's umbrella - I am particularly thinking of university libraries. If you are a specialised library (eg, music, medicine or law) then you should fit under the parent library which should fit under the main university's site. A particular department can link to your site from theirs, but you shouldn't fit into their hierarchy. Like you say, people use a library website for different reasons than a departmental website - you can even argue that a library forms its own department. You may even have need for specialised web templates if you have online catalogues or databases, etc. which may not fit in well with the purpose of the rest of the organisation's web templates. In my opinion, your 'breadcrumbs' or organisational structure, should probably look something like: Parent Org > Library > Specialised Library > (Subcategory >) Current Page or Parent Org > Library > (Subcategory >) Current Page If I was a user, that's how I would search for you on an organisation's website. Jason On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM, libwebdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow. Make a genuine enquiry, and get this. I see this list is living > up to its reputation for rudeness that I was warned about before I > joined. > > I asked for opinions on the use of breadcrumbs for the reason I > stated: because I was under the impression that they showed the user's > path to the current page, and the ones we're being urged to employ > simply show organisational structure. I even asked "Am I wrong?", and > was prepared to take the information on board if organisational > structure as breadcrumbs was considered acceptable. > > Some people have been courteous enough to express their views on the > matter, and I thank them very much for that. They seemed perfectly > capable of doing so without reading non-existant motives into my > question. > > I'm not interested in gathering "guru" evidence to support my own > view. Our webmaster would not be the slightest bit interested in > anything this group has to say, what with the CMS-driven invalid muck > with URLs that look like mathematical formulas that he cranks out. > > @Anton > We are permitted, with good grace and with genuine offers of help if > we need it, to have our site reside outside the CMS. I know for a fact > that when someone did ask "why is the library outside the CMS?", the > webmaster told them "because they can do it themselves". He's fine > with it. > It's "people like me" who get thanked on a daily basis for having an > intuitive, fast-loading, accessible, usable web site ... "thank > goodness you're not in with the rest of them". ... "your site is > better and so much easier to use". Web standards and > interoperability?? The webmaster gets a distinct > deer-in-the-headlights look on his face when I utter words such as > those. That is why we're out of it and will stay out of it until the > organisation reuqests that we join. > > Incidentally, it appears I was mistaken in my original post: the > breadcrumb trail will *not* include the current page, but will appear > like so (on 200+ pages): > > Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > > This seems even less effective than I originally thought. Clinical > Services have nothing to do with us, and we have nothing to do with > them, and we have a clear link back to the parent org on every page of > our site. We used to be under IT, then under Executive. It changes all > the time because they don't know where we fit. I know our user-base, > and they are simply NOT going to say "oh, now I've finished with the > library site, I think I'll just pop up to Clinical Services". They use > our site for reasons completely unrelated to the department above us, > and indeed that of our parent org. I will, however, consider carefully > the comments of those who offered their views on this type of > breadcrumb usage. > > I don't particularly enjoy being abused by strangers for posting an > honest question, so I think it's time I unsubscribed. Is that petulant > enough for you Mark, or should I also slam the door on my way out? > > thanks, > lib. > > > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Mark Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > libwebdev wrote: > > > >> My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, > >> using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because > >> we can. > >> > >> We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to > >> exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with > >> that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. > >> > > > > Who pays your bills? Golden Rule is that the guy with the gold makes the > > rules. Suck it up. "Because we can" is not a valid reason to do anything. > > You are part of the organizati
RE: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
In response to Lib: Don't go. I too was appalled by the tone of the responses, but didn't have time to respond myself. I thought it was a reasonable request. Kerry (always sympathetic to the problems of libraries in organisations) --- This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. --- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Wow. Make a genuine enquiry, and get this. I see this list is living up to its reputation for rudeness that I was warned about before I joined. I asked for opinions on the use of breadcrumbs for the reason I stated: because I was under the impression that they showed the user's path to the current page, and the ones we're being urged to employ simply show organisational structure. I even asked "Am I wrong?", and was prepared to take the information on board if organisational structure as breadcrumbs was considered acceptable. Some people have been courteous enough to express their views on the matter, and I thank them very much for that. They seemed perfectly capable of doing so without reading non-existant motives into my question. I'm not interested in gathering "guru" evidence to support my own view. Our webmaster would not be the slightest bit interested in anything this group has to say, what with the CMS-driven invalid muck with URLs that look like mathematical formulas that he cranks out. @Anton We are permitted, with good grace and with genuine offers of help if we need it, to have our site reside outside the CMS. I know for a fact that when someone did ask "why is the library outside the CMS?", the webmaster told them "because they can do it themselves". He's fine with it. It's "people like me" who get thanked on a daily basis for having an intuitive, fast-loading, accessible, usable web site ... "thank goodness you're not in with the rest of them". ... "your site is better and so much easier to use". Web standards and interoperability?? The webmaster gets a distinct deer-in-the-headlights look on his face when I utter words such as those. That is why we're out of it and will stay out of it until the organisation reuqests that we join. Incidentally, it appears I was mistaken in my original post: the breadcrumb trail will *not* include the current page, but will appear like so (on 200+ pages): Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library This seems even less effective than I originally thought. Clinical Services have nothing to do with us, and we have nothing to do with them, and we have a clear link back to the parent org on every page of our site. We used to be under IT, then under Executive. It changes all the time because they don't know where we fit. I know our user-base, and they are simply NOT going to say "oh, now I've finished with the library site, I think I'll just pop up to Clinical Services". They use our site for reasons completely unrelated to the department above us, and indeed that of our parent org. I will, however, consider carefully the comments of those who offered their views on this type of breadcrumb usage. I don't particularly enjoy being abused by strangers for posting an honest question, so I think it's time I unsubscribed. Is that petulant enough for you Mark, or should I also slam the door on my way out? thanks, lib. On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Mark Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > libwebdev wrote: > >> My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, >> using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because >> we can. >> >> We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to >> exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with >> that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. >> > > Who pays your bills? Golden Rule is that the guy with the gold makes the > rules. Suck it up. "Because we can" is not a valid reason to do anything. > You are part of the organization, yes? Therefore you should fit within its > structures and strictures, whether you like that or not. If they are wrong, > document it and prove it, otherwise it sounds like petulance to me. > >> I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've >> always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was >> to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are >> being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our >> organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd >> pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): >> >> Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page >> >> The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, >> that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. >> >> Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this >> benefit the user at all? > > Yes it is useful to the user because: > - it gives them an easy way to get back to a senior hierarchical level > _without_ having to go back through the history. Or perhaps they hit your > page from Google (most likely) and haven't already been through your > hierarchy - they get a quick view of the authoritativeness of the page and > where it fits in your organizational structure; > - the users are used to seeing breadcrumbs and using them. Your preferences > should not impact their use - you're presenting information for th
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Stuart Foulstone wrote: Flaming is definitely off topic! Flaming? Hardly. Robust discussion, definitely *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Flaming is definitely off topic! On Fri, June 6, 2008 9:38 am, Ted Drake wrote: > Damn, this is refreshing to hear for a change! Enough said. > Ted > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mark Harris > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:13 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and > usability > > libwebdev wrote: > >> My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, >> using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because >> we can. >> >> We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to >> exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with >> that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. >> > > Who pays your bills? Golden Rule is that the guy with the gold makes the > rules. Suck it up. "Because we can" is not a valid reason to do > anything. You are part of the organization, yes? Therefore you should > fit within its structures and strictures, whether you like that or not. > If they are wrong, document it and prove it, otherwise it sounds like > petulance to me. > > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
For discussion on usability of "breadcrumb" trails see Nielsen, http://www.useit.com/alertbox/breadcrumbs.html On Fri, June 6, 2008 7:45 am, libwebdev wrote: > Hi folks, > > My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, > using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because > we can. > > We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to > exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with > that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. > > I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've > always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was > to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are > being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our > organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd > pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): > > Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page > > The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, > that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. > > Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this > benefit the user at all? > > I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it > in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, > and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. > > thanks, > lib. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
I should also add, that the whole notion of "we're outside the CMS just because we can" is extremely irritating to hear. Its people like you that cause massive maintenance issues and make everyone 2-3 years down the track go, "why the fk aren't these guys just using the same thing as everyone else". Its also completely contradictory to what web standards in general are all about - being consistent and completely interoperable. I am only saying this because we have one group in our organisation which have taken this path, and they just make the department as a whole look bad and inconsistent. On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Steve Baty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you Jessica. Your clarification is correct :) > > 2008/6/6 Jessica Enders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I agree with most of the comments in response to this query but thought I >> would clarify one part of what Steve said, namely that: "breadcrumbs ... >> represent the content pathway the user followed to reach their current >> page". >> >> I misread this sentence initially and so others may too. I thought Steve >> was saying that breadcrumbs represent the pathway of pages the user moved >> through to get to their current page. But what I think he's actually saying >> is that they represent the location of the current page within the site >> hierarchy. This latter type of crumb is useful because it gives you a sense >> of context; the former type of crumb is unnecessary because you have the >> "back" button. >> >> Cheers >> >> Jessica Enders >> Director >> Formulate Information Design >> >> http://formulate.com.au >> >> Phone: (02) 6116 8765 >> Fax: (02) 8456 5916 >> PO Box 5108 >> Braddon ACT 2612 >> >> >> On 06/06/2008, at 6:58 PM, Steve Baty wrote: >> >> Lib, >>> >>> Breadcrumbs fall into that category of IA component that hurts no-one, >>> and helps some people some of the time, which generally makes them >>> worthwhile. However, breadcrumbs should serve a specific purpose, that >>> being: to represent the content pathway the user followed to reach their >>> current page. If your site (overall) is structured the same way as your >>> organisation, then the breadcrumbs you've described serve their purpose >>> (although the convention is that each node in the breadcrumb be a link, >>> other than the current page). >>> >>> From what I can see, however, the intent of this device is not to act as >>> a breadcrumb trail in the navigational sense, but is, in fact, a method for >>> communicating organisational structure. That should be a different >>> conversation, and its one that is likely going to come down to 'Company >>> convention dictates' - end of discussion. >>> >>> I have some concerns about the potential for confusing users who would >>> visually associate this device with a navigational mechanism, so an >>> alternate visual treatment (especially the choice of the > delimiter) might >>> be in order. >>> >>> Otherwise, the general consensus amongst the IA community is that >>> breadcrumbs don't hurt, and they might help. >>> >>> Regards >>> Steve >>> >>> 2008/6/6 libwebdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, >>> using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because >>> we can. >>> >>> We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to >>> exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with >>> that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. >>> >>> I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've >>> always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was >>> to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are >>> being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our >>> organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd >>> pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): >>> >>> Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page >>> >>> The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, >>> that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. >>> >>> Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this >>> benefit the user at all? >>> >>> I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it >>> in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, >>> and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. >>> >>> thanks, >>> lib. >>> >>> >>> *** >>> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >>> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >>> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> *** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Stev
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Thank you Jessica. Your clarification is correct :) 2008/6/6 Jessica Enders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I agree with most of the comments in response to this query but thought I > would clarify one part of what Steve said, namely that: "breadcrumbs ... > represent the content pathway the user followed to reach their current > page". > > I misread this sentence initially and so others may too. I thought Steve > was saying that breadcrumbs represent the pathway of pages the user moved > through to get to their current page. But what I think he's actually saying > is that they represent the location of the current page within the site > hierarchy. This latter type of crumb is useful because it gives you a sense > of context; the former type of crumb is unnecessary because you have the > "back" button. > > Cheers > > Jessica Enders > Director > Formulate Information Design > > http://formulate.com.au > > Phone: (02) 6116 8765 > Fax: (02) 8456 5916 > PO Box 5108 > Braddon ACT 2612 > > > On 06/06/2008, at 6:58 PM, Steve Baty wrote: > > Lib, >> >> Breadcrumbs fall into that category of IA component that hurts no-one, and >> helps some people some of the time, which generally makes them worthwhile. >> However, breadcrumbs should serve a specific purpose, that being: to >> represent the content pathway the user followed to reach their current page. >> If your site (overall) is structured the same way as your organisation, then >> the breadcrumbs you've described serve their purpose (although the >> convention is that each node in the breadcrumb be a link, other than the >> current page). >> >> From what I can see, however, the intent of this device is not to act as a >> breadcrumb trail in the navigational sense, but is, in fact, a method for >> communicating organisational structure. That should be a different >> conversation, and its one that is likely going to come down to 'Company >> convention dictates' - end of discussion. >> >> I have some concerns about the potential for confusing users who would >> visually associate this device with a navigational mechanism, so an >> alternate visual treatment (especially the choice of the > delimiter) might >> be in order. >> >> Otherwise, the general consensus amongst the IA community is that >> breadcrumbs don't hurt, and they might help. >> >> Regards >> Steve >> >> 2008/6/6 libwebdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Hi folks, >> >> My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, >> using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because >> we can. >> >> We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to >> exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with >> that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. >> >> I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've >> always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was >> to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are >> being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our >> organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd >> pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): >> >> Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page >> >> The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, >> that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. >> >> Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this >> benefit the user at all? >> >> I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it >> in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, >> and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. >> >> thanks, >> lib. >> >> >> *** >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *** >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA >> Principal Consultant >> Meld Consulting >> M: +61 417 061 292 >> E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com >> >> Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org >> Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org >> Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org >> Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com >> *** >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *** >> > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
I agree with most of the comments in response to this query but thought I would clarify one part of what Steve said, namely that: "breadcrumbs ... represent the content pathway the user followed to reach their current page". I misread this sentence initially and so others may too. I thought Steve was saying that breadcrumbs represent the pathway of pages the user moved through to get to their current page. But what I think he's actually saying is that they represent the location of the current page within the site hierarchy. This latter type of crumb is useful because it gives you a sense of context; the former type of crumb is unnecessary because you have the "back" button. Cheers Jessica Enders Director Formulate Information Design http://formulate.com.au Phone: (02) 6116 8765 Fax: (02) 8456 5916 PO Box 5108 Braddon ACT 2612 On 06/06/2008, at 6:58 PM, Steve Baty wrote: Lib, Breadcrumbs fall into that category of IA component that hurts no- one, and helps some people some of the time, which generally makes them worthwhile. However, breadcrumbs should serve a specific purpose, that being: to represent the content pathway the user followed to reach their current page. If your site (overall) is structured the same way as your organisation, then the breadcrumbs you've described serve their purpose (although the convention is that each node in the breadcrumb be a link, other than the current page). From what I can see, however, the intent of this device is not to act as a breadcrumb trail in the navigational sense, but is, in fact, a method for communicating organisational structure. That should be a different conversation, and its one that is likely going to come down to 'Company convention dictates' - end of discussion. I have some concerns about the potential for confusing users who would visually associate this device with a navigational mechanism, so an alternate visual treatment (especially the choice of the > delimiter) might be in order. Otherwise, the general consensus amongst the IA community is that breadcrumbs don't hurt, and they might help. Regards Steve 2008/6/6 libwebdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi folks, My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because we can. We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this benefit the user at all? I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. thanks, lib. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- -- Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA Principal Consultant Meld Consulting M: +61 417 061 292 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
I agree with Steve Baty Breadcrumbs hurt no one and help more than a few. I have been spending a lot of time recently with our users, talking menu systems, navigation, breadcrumbs trails and expectations. If Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page is a list of links and you can easily go from Parent Org to Clinical Services in one step and from Clinical Services to Library in one step (and hopefully from Library to Current page in one step) Then you are doing your clients a disservice, but not letting them know the full structure of your organisation and it's website. Most library users don't care about your parent org, but a few will. Plus it will give your site more authority, as it is seen part of bigger picture. You will get same answer if you asked on IAI - Information Architects Institutes mailing list. You have to join the IAI, but if your are interested in this type of thing, it is well worth it. ps I work in a library and we have a difficult parent org ;-) -- Nick Cowie http://nickcowie.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Ihttp://developer.yahoo.com/ypatterns/pattern.php?pattern=breadcrumbs 2008/6/6 libwebdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi folks, > > My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, > using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because > we can. > > We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to > exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with > that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. > > I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've > always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was > to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are > being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our > organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd > pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): > > Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page > > The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, > that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. > > Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this > benefit the user at all? > > I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it > in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, > and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. > > thanks, > lib. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Lib, Breadcrumbs fall into that category of IA component that hurts no-one, and helps some people some of the time, which generally makes them worthwhile. However, breadcrumbs should serve a specific purpose, that being: to represent the content pathway the user followed to reach their current page. If your site (overall) is structured the same way as your organisation, then the breadcrumbs you've described serve their purpose (although the convention is that each node in the breadcrumb be a link, other than the current page). >From what I can see, however, the intent of this device is not to act as a breadcrumb trail in the navigational sense, but is, in fact, a method for communicating organisational structure. That should be a different conversation, and its one that is likely going to come down to 'Company convention dictates' - end of discussion. I have some concerns about the potential for confusing users who would visually associate this device with a navigational mechanism, so an alternate visual treatment (especially the choice of the > delimiter) might be in order. Otherwise, the general consensus amongst the IA community is that breadcrumbs don't hurt, and they might help. Regards Steve 2008/6/6 libwebdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi folks, > > My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, > using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because > we can. > > We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to > exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with > that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. > > I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've > always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was > to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are > being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our > organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd > pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): > > Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page > > The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, > that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. > > Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this > benefit the user at all? > > I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it > in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, > and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. > > thanks, > lib. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > -- -- Steve 'Doc' Baty B.Sc (Maths), M.EC, MBA Principal Consultant Meld Consulting M: +61 417 061 292 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UX Statistics: http://uxstats.blogspot.com Member, UPA - www.upassoc.org Member, IA Institute - www.iainstitute.org Member, IxDA - www.ixda.org Contributor - UXMatters - www.uxmatters.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Damn, this is refreshing to hear for a change! Enough said. Ted -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Harris Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 9:13 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability libwebdev wrote: > My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, > using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because > we can. > > We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to > exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with > that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. > Who pays your bills? Golden Rule is that the guy with the gold makes the rules. Suck it up. "Because we can" is not a valid reason to do anything. You are part of the organization, yes? Therefore you should fit within its structures and strictures, whether you like that or not. If they are wrong, document it and prove it, otherwise it sounds like petulance to me. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
I agree with Mark Harris. Mark Harris wrote: libwebdev wrote: My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because we can. We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. Who pays your bills? Golden Rule is that the guy with the gold makes the rules. Suck it up. "Because we can" is not a valid reason to do anything. You are part of the organization, yes? Therefore you should fit within its structures and strictures, whether you like that or not. If they are wrong, document it and prove it, otherwise it sounds like petulance to me. I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this benefit the user at all? Yes it is useful to the user because: - it gives them an easy way to get back to a senior hierarchical level _without_ having to go back through the history. Or perhaps they hit your page from Google (most likely) and haven't already been through your hierarchy - they get a quick view of the authoritativeness of the page and where it fits in your organizational structure; - the users are used to seeing breadcrumbs and using them. Your preferences should not impact their use - you're presenting information for them to consume and so should design for their needs. I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. Let's be honest, lib - you're questioning this because _you_ don't want to do it and you're looking for something to wave at the people who want you to do it that says "98% of web gurus agree with me so yah boo sucks, we're not doing it". Don't cloak it with usability or web standards. Cheers Mark Harris Technology Research and consultancy Services Ltd New Zealand *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ***List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmUnsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfmHelp: [EMAIL PROTECTED]***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
libwebdev wrote: My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because we can. We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. Who pays your bills? Golden Rule is that the guy with the gold makes the rules. Suck it up. "Because we can" is not a valid reason to do anything. You are part of the organization, yes? Therefore you should fit within its structures and strictures, whether you like that or not. If they are wrong, document it and prove it, otherwise it sounds like petulance to me. I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this benefit the user at all? Yes it is useful to the user because: - it gives them an easy way to get back to a senior hierarchical level _without_ having to go back through the history. Or perhaps they hit your page from Google (most likely) and haven't already been through your hierarchy - they get a quick view of the authoritativeness of the page and where it fits in your organizational structure; - the users are used to seeing breadcrumbs and using them. Your preferences should not impact their use - you're presenting information for them to consume and so should design for their needs. I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. Let's be honest, lib - you're questioning this because _you_ don't want to do it and you're looking for something to wave at the people who want you to do it that says "98% of web gurus agree with me so yah boo sucks, we're not doing it". Don't cloak it with usability or web standards. Cheers Mark Harris Technology Research and consultancy Services Ltd New Zealand *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Hi lib, The organization that I am part of uses breadcrumbs, however they're used to display where the user has been and one link to indicate the top level. I think in terms of usability they can help a user associate themselves with your structure if they're really searching for something. They're also typically used as a last bail option when all else fails (including the Back button). To be honest, in your case they don't benefit the user in any sort of way except perhaps help them understand how your corporate structure works (but who actually cares?). On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:45 PM, libwebdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi folks, > > My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, > using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because > we can. > > We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to > exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with > that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. > > I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've > always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was > to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are > being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our > organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd > pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): > > Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page > > The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, > that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. > > Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this > benefit the user at all? > > I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it > in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, > and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. > > thanks, > lib. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** > > -- - Anton Babushkin *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Hi Lib, this may be off topic and more a usability question. however I see relatedness in how to structure them semantically and to benifit those that may wish to use them. I find that they can be a nice to have to assist users, however if you have to tab through these, they become extra links and not much assistance for accessibility users. I'm sure others will have some more standards related comments for you. But I feel it comes more down to the benifit for the users if these are used at all. William > libwebdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, > using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because > we can. > > We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to > exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with > that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. > > I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've > always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was > to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are > being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our > organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd > pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): > > Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page > > The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, > that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. > > Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this > benefit the user at all? > > I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it > in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, > and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. > > thanks, > lib. > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Breadcrumbs showing organisational structure and usability
Hi folks, My organisation manages around 7000+ pages for 100s of departments, using a CMS. Mine is the only department outside the CMS, just because we can. We have been persuaded (read: bullied) to redesign our header to exactly match that of the parent organisation. I have no problem with that per se, but theirs includes breadcrumbs, and we don't want 'em. I'm wondering what the consensus is here on their usefulness. I've always been under the impression that the purpose of breadcrumbs was to indicate to the user where they had been. However, the ones we are being urged to implement do no such thing; they simply display our organisational structure. This means that on every one of our 200-odd pages, the breadcrumbs will appear like so (we are the library): Parent Org > Clinical Services > Library > Current page The only thing that's going to change is the current page. To me, that's not a breadcrumb trail at all. Am I wrong in my thinking? Is this a common usage? How does this benefit the user at all? I'm questioning it because of usability issues, which is how I tie it in with web standards. If this is considered off-topic, I apologise, and replies should come directly to me rather than the list. thanks, lib. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
