This is quite an interesting off-topic thread!

On 12 Dec 2003, at 07:17, Gary Menzel wrote:

Agree that you need to own the directory structure. The directory
structure for a site should make sense to the owner of the information. It
may make no sense at all to a user of the information.

Mmm... You see, I agree that in terms of "ownership" the site owner rules the coop. But I think, if we were to get into a situation where, as others were saying, users try to navigate a site by guessing the directory structure, but were thwarted by our esoteric organisation, then fundamental questions need to be asked. I can't see many cases where the two issues of ownership are in conflict, and if organising a site in a way that makes sense to users doesn't cause too many problems, then why not do it?

But a well structured site, with good navigation, shouldn't matter. Remember when we all used frames (admit it - we did) so a user would only ever see the base URL in the browser bar?

I think the point I was trying to answer was that a lot of users (and I would say they are a minority in fact) use URLs to navigate a site and, as such, a logical directory structure is essential. But also, if you have a lot of contributors (even if they only contribute by saying "ok") it helps to be logical. I recently sat through a painful hour of getting a site map approved in which a key player had a fundamental problem understanding that a page on the second level of the site was actually "visible" at all times from the front page. I'm also currently tearing my hair out with a site manager who just doesn't "get" the blindingly obvious site structure I set up - he would if he'd come up with it himself and I wish I'd let him, or at least (ahem) "guided" him.
I don't think we do ourselves any favours by making things "needlessly" obscure.


(just got back from Christmas lunch so apologies if this post makes no sense whatsover!)

The discussion list for

Reply via email to