I think some amount of redundant navigation is ok...and breadcrumbs
specifically are a place where navigation redundancy is fine. You
can make a case for or against redundant navigation depending on the
site, the purpose of the site, and the site visitor profile. What is
the nature of the site?
If your site structure is well thought out and not too complex, I think it
can be helpful to display it to the user through breadcrumbs, especially if
they spend a lot of time in the system and it would benefit them to learn
the structure.
Take URLs for instance - at the very least users can see
Do you feel confused right now? Because the page you are viewing has
no breadcrumbs. (I know, skewed sample).
Breadcrumbs should be used as a means to reduce ambiguity and/or
provide convenient access to higher levels within the organizational
structure. You can get a rough feeling for the
Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
I don't agree that including page titles in breadcrumbs is a
standard -- lots of sites do it, but many don't. If Apple isn't
doing it, can it really be a standard? ;-)
With a visually-related title and breadcrumb (alignment, proximity,
, etc.) I cannot
Re: redundancy -- That's redundant is a criticism that never makes much
sense to me. This isn't the physical world we're dealing with. Efficiency is
not gained through avoidance of redundant page elements.
If a title is restated in the nav and the body of the page, I'm not sure how
it hurts the
Outside of the breadcrumb conversation altogether, and assuming that
simpler is better where simpler is reasonable, feasible, etc.
redundant is simple shorthand for this is already here and it's
not adding value precisely because it's already here.
If one thing is doing something different from
Whether or not you should include them is one question. It seems that
you've already decided that you should.
How to implement them is what you're asking.
You Are Here is not necessary if the trail clearly ends with the
page that you're currently on. I recommend leaving it unlinked so
its
On Sep 2, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Audrey Crane wrote:
Of course people may have more of a vague sense than a clearly-formed
question, but I'm going to ponder how to test this. I'm really
curious to try to manifest a response to having the page title or not
in usability. (Any thoughts?)
Audrey,
I think (and see in research) that efficiency *is* gained because
people have to parse less stuff to find what they want...
I'd argue that people are parsing an entire page design, which can be
something that is done well with redundant labels (or not) -- it's a
function of context and the
I tried to make a change to a site I'm new to working on, to remove
the page title as the last element of the breadcrumb and simply treat
the title itself as the last element in the breadcrumb, including a
last and keeping the title immediately below. I was surprised that
not only wasn't it a
I think that including the current page title makes it totally clear that
this is a trail to the current page. Breadcrumbs are sometimes prefaced by
'you are here' which is possibly redundant if you include the current page
title. Without the current title the breadcrumbs would mean 'these are the
The Buddha says, wherever you go, there you are. He also says
that very few users rely on breadcrumbs to navigate or get themselves
oriented within the site: they only care about a fluid nav to
where they need to go (present page) and to the next place (sometimes
back, sometimes not). That said,
But if it isn't clear (that this is where you are), shouldn't there
be better ways of making it clear than providing a redundant
non-functional element?
Maybe with the You Are Here: and including that last ?
I might test this. I'll let y'all know if I can sneak it into a
usability study and what
Audrey, I can totally empathize with desire to simplify, simplify,
simplify. There is some credence to the SEO argument as having a
redundancy between the URL, page title (as shown on browser),
headline, and breadcrumbs (or sub header) are variables in improving
page rank.
. . . . . . . . . . .
I would keep the current page title at the end of the breadcrumb trail in
addition to the title.
Users may not mentally link a title that is separated from the breadcrumb.
It's a good 'you are here' tool, but without the current page at the end,
it's more like 'you're in this section'.
Putting
On Sep 1, 2009, at 2:43 PM, Chad Jennings wrote:
Audrey, I can totally empathize with desire to simplify, simplify,
simplify. There is some credence to the SEO argument as having a
redundancy between the URL, page title (as shown on browser),
headline, and breadcrumbs (or sub header) are
On Sep 1, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Audrey Crane wrote:
Their argument is that it's useful to reinforce where the user is,
and that since people don't focus on it unless it's needed
secondarily for navigation, it adds negligible to no visual noise to
the page.
Breadcrumbs are a design cop-out.
17 matches
Mail list logo
