> Blue, underlined text is hardly navigation. That's just a common > identifier for a link, which in HTML is an action, not necessarily > navigation. A link can do a number of things like execute a javascript > function or dhtml. > > Google, since you mention how standard it is, does not use > this for it's > core navigation. Web, Images, Groups, Directory, and News (The four > categories of google) are represented with blue text in a box. If > selected the box is blue, if not it's gray. This is hardly a standard, > but none the less is effective because users are familiar with tabular > menus.
<CF_UsabilitySoapBox> Well, this is quibbling over minor differences and word definitions. And I know I'm blowing against the wind here, but the simple fact is that users know what to do with blue, underlined text and HTML buttons. Why deviate from something that users know? It only makes it harder for them and increases the likelihood that they won't use your site--unless they have no place else to go. Here is the key phrase in your post: > effective because users are familiar That is the heart of the matter. > Every site, whether flash or html, navigate completely different. This is pretty much true and it's a negative, not a positive. On the web, different != good usability. All of those sites with different/unique navigation are harder to use than "standard" blue underlines and HTML widgets because users have to figure them out--and they HATE that. Even if you think, what's the big deal, it only takes a few minutes? They HATE to be forced to learn something new when all they want to do is...whatever...anything but be forced by some web site to endure their "different" navigation. Look at Yahoo, eBay, Amazon and Google. I'd guess they are among the most heavily used sites and they rely on "standard" light/white background, dark/black text, blue underlined links and (for the most part) standard form elements. Minor differences, but they don't stray far from the basics. They know what works. And we can leverage the usability of those sites by mimicking their navigation and design elements. Most users will know how to navigate a site that looks like them. I know this is anathema to all of the web artistes out there, but it's the truth: the big sites really define usability for the rest of us. We ignore it at our peril. There is room for individuality, but most of the Flash example that were suggested on the list are shooting themselves in the foot, IMHO. If we, as developers, care whether or not our site is usable by the most people (which means more opportunities for sales/readers/customers/etc) then we must bow to the simple needs of users and not force our techie-oriented "user experiences" on them. And using Flash like most sites do goes against good usability. </CF_UsabilitySoapBox> Man, I need a weekend off! :) Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
