Comments on: Source Order Can Create Usability Disasters http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/ A resource for Web designers and developers to read about and discuss their craft. Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:29:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Really? Everything I Know About CSS Is Wrong? | Wisdump http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-5548 Really? Everything I Know About CSS Is Wrong? | Wisdump Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:07:00 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-5548 [...] lack of source order control [...] [...] lack of source order control [...]

]]> By: Ben http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1045 Ben Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:33:02 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1045 A website that was solely based on search engine referrals would be good, providing the person knew what they were looking for. If Jon hadn't got the 'recent comments' section on this blog, I may have never found this article. In reality, people use a lot of different techniques in accessing and searching for content - some use in-content links, some search, some use RSS to collate data, etc. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that data all over the Internet is fragmented over many HTML pages - and perhaps this delivery mechanism is not fit for today's WWW (perhaps it was in the early 90s). You don't get that with a book - all the information is in one place, very easily accessible. Books don't have global navigation or advertising strewn across their pages - most should have a contents page and an index section. Yet, when a book becomes a tool, flicking through 500 pages is a lot harder than having a computer index the book and pull out the chunk you need. Regarding source order - I find that if a documents reads well with CSS disabled (as mentioned earlier) then it is fit for the Internet. A website that was solely based on search engine referrals would be good, providing the person knew what they were looking for. If Jon hadn’t got the ‘recent comments’ section on this blog, I may have never found this article.

In reality, people use a lot of different techniques in accessing and searching for content – some use in-content links, some search, some use RSS to collate data, etc.

I think part of the problem lies in the fact that data all over the Internet is fragmented over many HTML pages – and perhaps this delivery mechanism is not fit for today’s WWW (perhaps it was in the early 90s). You don’t get that with a book – all the information is in one place, very easily accessible.

Books don’t have global navigation or advertising strewn across their pages – most should have a contents page and an index section. Yet, when a book becomes a tool, flicking through 500 pages is a lot harder than having a computer index the book and pull out the chunk you need.

Regarding source order – I find that if a documents reads well with CSS disabled (as mentioned earlier) then it is fit for the Internet.

]]> By: MisterC http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1046 MisterC Tue, 20 Nov 2007 12:05:07 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1046 Fantastic post but in my brief scan of the comments you all miss the point entirely. Source ordered content is for search engine optimization. Having your navigation/skip-links/etc above your content can only confuse the spider more. Skip links are designed to help these improperly source order docs with mobile/screen readers. If you want good SEO, content should always come first. Followed by h1, nested h2's with nested h3's. sidebars/etc and then header nav. As far as layout/usability concerns, well that's why we have CSS... Fantastic post but in my brief scan of the comments you all miss the point entirely. Source ordered content is for search engine optimization. Having your navigation/skip-links/etc above your content can only confuse the spider more. Skip links are designed to help these improperly source order docs with mobile/screen readers. If you want good SEO, content should always come first. Followed by h1, nested h2′s with nested h3′s. sidebars/etc and then header nav. As far as layout/usability concerns, well that’s why we have CSS…

]]> By: Jon http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1037 Jon Tue, 15 May 2007 12:33:54 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1037 @Terrence Wood: You've got some extremely interesting points, and while they may be extreme, should absolutely be considered. Just because everybody is used to something doesn't mean it can't be better. I'm especially intrigued by your opinion that traditional navigation schemes will begin to find their way out in favor of content based 'guides' if you will. It does seem that having both a traditional navigation as well as an extensive contextual navigation is a bit overboard. Perhaps using space more effectively is in order in certain circumstances. I do, however, feel that a traditional navigation does have a place in many situations. @Terrence Wood: You’ve got some extremely interesting points, and while they may be extreme, should absolutely be considered. Just because everybody is used to something doesn’t mean it can’t be better. I’m especially intrigued by your opinion that traditional navigation schemes will begin to find their way out in favor of content based ‘guides’ if you will. It does seem that having both a traditional navigation as well as an extensive contextual navigation is a bit overboard. Perhaps using space more effectively is in order in certain circumstances. I do, however, feel that a traditional navigation does have a place in many situations.

]]> By: Terrence Wood http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1038 Terrence Wood Tue, 15 May 2007 10:13:24 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1038 Since you're asking for an opinion then yes, in my view most navigation traditionally placed at the top or in the left or right sidebars could be placed after content or completly omitted from most sites. It might be too radical for decision makers studying some wireframes but consider: 1. we know that <a href="http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2005/11/28/the-8-types-of-navigation-pages/" rel="nofollow">gallery style pages perform well</a> 2. <a href="http://www.guuui.com/issues/01_05.php" rel="nofollow">users ignore navigation areas</a> 3. The primary 'navigation' for most sites is a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?&q=biggest+referer" rel="nofollow">search engine referral</a> (or myspace). 4. RSS and social networking, and content based navigation (c.f. footer here) will continue to grow which negate the need for traditional navigation devices. Since you’re asking for an opinion then yes, in my view most navigation traditionally placed at the top or in the left or right sidebars could be placed after content or completly omitted from most sites. It might be too radical for decision makers studying some wireframes but consider:

1. we know that gallery style pages perform well

2. users ignore navigation areas

3. The primary ‘navigation’ for most sites is a search engine referral (or myspace).

4. RSS and social networking, and content based navigation (c.f. footer here) will continue to grow which negate the need for traditional navigation devices.

]]> By: Jon http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1041 Jon Mon, 14 May 2007 15:44:18 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1041 @Terrence Wood: Thanks so much for coming back with your replies. It's good to read that other people have strong opinions on issues such as these, as they can have influence on many things in development and design. Do you feel that site navigation should be visually displayed after content as well? That is, when speaking about the design when it is rendered with full CSS support to a reader who is not using assisting technology. @Terrence Wood: Thanks so much for coming back with your replies. It’s good to read that other people have strong opinions on issues such as these, as they can have influence on many things in development and design. Do you feel that site navigation should be visually displayed after content as well? That is, when speaking about the design when it is rendered with full CSS support to a reader who is not using assisting technology.

]]> By: Terrence Wood http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1042 Terrence Wood Mon, 14 May 2007 14:37:31 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1042 Jon, to answer your other questions: It's a learnt behavior to expect navigation first and it's a result of table based web design from the 90's where source order was entirely determined by the visual design. And it continues today due for the same reasons - easy floats etc. In terms of what users actually prefer, I tend to agree with what the Hudson Weakley study *actually* found i.e. it makes little or no difference to user, but good structure and descriptive headings *greatly* improve the user experience. Jon, to answer your other questions: It’s a learnt behavior to expect navigation first and it’s a result of table based web design from the 90′s where source order was entirely determined by the visual design. And it continues today due for the same reasons – easy floats etc.

In terms of what users actually prefer, I tend to agree with what the Hudson Weakley study *actually* found i.e. it makes little or no difference to user, but good structure and descriptive headings *greatly* improve the user experience.

]]> By: Terrence Wood http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1044 Terrence Wood Mon, 14 May 2007 14:15:46 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1044 My tags got eaten... basically the idea is to start the content of with h1, and use h2, h3 as required. Navigation kicks off with h2 with each section as h3, this helps screenreader users by ensuring the navigation is included in the headings listing. The skip links are marked up as an unordered list. For minimal content sites (one or two headings, few links) omit the skip links. My tags got eaten… basically the idea is to start the content of with h1, and use h2, h3 as required. Navigation kicks off with h2 with each section as h3, this helps screenreader users by ensuring the navigation is included in the headings listing.

The skip links are marked up as an unordered list. For minimal content sites (one or two headings, few links) omit the skip links.

]]> By: Terrence Wood http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1043 Terrence Wood Mon, 14 May 2007 14:07:37 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1043 I've used the same basic source order for the past 5 years or so where the visual design is your typical header, 2 or 3 cols, footer and nav is typically 5-9 wide and 2 deep. I prefer a content first source order because it tests well with screen reader users (and mobiles), removes the need to reinvent the wheel each time your content needs change, and it works regardless of the design you put on top of it - just add/subtract a couple of containers depending on the visual designs needs. 1. skip links = 'main content', 'links in section name' (optional), 'site menu' marked up as and not preceded by any headings 2. Site Branding - plain text - why waste my best heading? 3. Content title - , followed by sub-headings, and sub-sub-headings as required. 4. Site menu - 5. Current section: Section name - (i.e. links in 'section name') 6. Main sections - (links to main sections) 7. Search and help - (search form, sitemap, privacy, accessibility etc) I’ve used the same basic source order for the past 5 years or so where the visual design is your typical header, 2 or 3 cols, footer and nav is typically 5-9 wide and 2 deep. I prefer a content first source order because it tests well with screen reader users (and mobiles), removes the need to reinvent the wheel each time your content needs change, and it works regardless of the design you put on top of it – just add/subtract a couple of containers depending on the visual designs needs.

1. skip links = ‘main content’, ‘links in section name’ (optional), ‘site menu’ marked up as and not preceded by any headings
2. Site Branding – plain text – why waste my best heading?
3. Content title – , followed by sub-headings, and sub-sub-headings as required.
4. Site menu -
5. Current section: Section name – (i.e. links in ‘section name’)
6. Main sections – (links to main sections)
7. Search and help – (search form, sitemap, privacy, accessibility etc)

]]> By: Jon http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1039 Jon Mon, 14 May 2007 11:52:28 +0000 http://mondaybynoon.com/2007/02/12/source-order-can-create-usability-disasters/#comment-1039 @Terrence Wood: What a fantastic reply, thank you so much for taking the time to go into the detail you did. You bring up some really solid points in that there are absolutely some issues with the study. It's a great question to ask: Do readers <em>really</em> prefer navigation to be first? Or are they simply used to poorly constructed websites? In practice, Terrance, do you find yourself including content prior to site navigation? @Terrence Wood: What a fantastic reply, thank you so much for taking the time to go into the detail you did. You bring up some really solid points in that there are absolutely some issues with the study. It’s a great question to ask: Do readers really prefer navigation to be first? Or are they simply used to poorly constructed websites? In practice, Terrance, do you find yourself including content prior to site navigation?

]]>