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 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 > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Anton Babushkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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. > > ******************************************************************* > 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] *******************************************************************
