Yes, I complete agree that users expect some navigation. I just disagree that there is a standard. Vertical-left, horizontal-upper-right, horizontal top, horizontal-top with drop down... only one can be the standard. I think we're confusing what's traditional and what's a standard.
To bring it back to flash, the same types of navigation schemes listed above are used in flash also. The traditions/standards above are universal to all application design, not just the browser and web sites. I'm all up on boxesandarrows.com. Great site, but you'll notice, they don't underline their links. Nor are they the traditional blue. But to keep this inline with what were talking about, I just don't see any standard navigation, just traditional approaches. Regardless, whether its in a browser, a flash plugin, or a windows form, it's the designer who defines navigation. Not the medium. (Which is what I think we're talking about) Adam Wayne Lehman Web Systems Developer Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Distance Education Division -----Original Message----- From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 2:11 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Is Flash really THAT good? There have been numerous scientific studies and papers on web site navigation and user experience, which suggest the user does expect a certain standard navigation. Vertical-Left, and Horizontal-Upper-Right are where most users expect the nav to be. I can't recall a "look" study offhand but it probably exists out there. Search on Google. boxesandarrows.com is a good place to look as well. -- jon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Friday, June 20, 2003, 2:01:47 PM, you wrote: AWL> Blue, underlined text is hardly navigation. That's just a common AWL> identifier for a link, which in HTML is an action, not necessarily AWL> navigation. A link can do a number of things like execute a javascript AWL> function or dhtml. AWL> Google, since you mention how standard it is, does not use this for it's AWL> core navigation. Web, Images, Groups, Directory, and News (The four AWL> categories of google) are represented with blue text in a box. If AWL> selected the box is blue, if not it's gray. This is hardly a standard, AWL> but none the less is effective because users are familiar with tabular AWL> menus. AWL> Users however familiar with blue underline text (the majority of site on AWL> the internet apply different colors, so I'd say the universal sign of a AWL> link is just the underline), are also familiar with a drop down window. AWL> They are familiar with side bar menus and horizontal tabs. AWL> Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. From AWL> how the menu is displayed, to how it's organized. This is what I mean by AWL> no such thing a standard navigation. AWL> However, I think the closest thing you could call standard navigation is AWL> underlined test links centered at the bottom of a page. It's an AWL> extremely common practice, but not very effective. Could you imagine AWL> having to scroll to the bottom of each page to navigate a site? AWL> Adam Wayne Lehman AWL> Web Systems Developer AWL> Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health AWL> Distance Education Division AWL> -----Original Message----- AWL> From: Lofback, Chris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] AWL> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 1:36 PM AWL> To: CF-Talk AWL> Subject: RE: Is Flash really THAT good? >> As for non-standard navigation, what make flash navigation >> non-standard >> in compared to HTML. What is standard navigation anyhow? Standard >> navigation doesn't exist. It's just a concept. AWL> I don't agree. Blue, underlined text is nearly universally understood AWL> as a clickable link, and the vast majority of users recognize a standard AWL> HTML button widget. These are instantly recognizable and usable. I'd AWL> argue that for all practical purposes this is as close to a standard as AWL> you can get. AWL> Using different link styles, custom buttons and clickable "hot spots" is AWL> nonstandard, and forces the user to learn how to use the app. Make the AWL> widgets different enough, and users just won't do it. Unless the site AWL> is the only place to get what they want, they will go find another site AWL> that is easier to use. And this is especially true of the non-techie AWL> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"s who makes up a large portion of the user/customer AWL> pool. AWL> So why put a user through it? They want fast and easy to use. What's AWL> wrong with giving them what they want? And a simple way to do that is AWL> to stick as closely as possible to design "standards". AWL> I love the ease of use at Google and am thankful that they don't force AWL> me to endure their idea of an "experience" to get what I want. They use AWL> standard navigation links and buttons and my user experience is great. AWL> Chris AWL> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
