If someone could run an A/B test on this to see if the big footer can
increase visitor retention, it would be great. Often, talking to
death about this type of stuff isn't so productive because
theories that sound convincing aren't always the right ones. After
all, human behavior is quite
So, while people see them as helpful, the real question is if the
experience of the site is diminished when they are absent. If users
don't miss them, then why make the investment?
I would flip this question around a bit and ask does it noticeably
improve the experience for some users
2009/4/22 Jeff Geurts geu...@gmail.com:
If it were indeed a site map, then I would suggest linking to it from
a top-level navigation area. There are more users familiar with a
typical site map link than with scrolling to the bottom of the screen
to find it there.
Can you point to evidence of
2009/4/22 Erin Lynn Young erinlynnyo...@gmail.com:
- www.target.com uses this type of footer
- www.solarwinds.com does as well.
More examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/factoryjoe/sets/72157594487444992/
--
Danny Hope
07595 226 792
@yandle
I have nothing to add to this thread, except to add momentum to a meme that
I hear from time to time, as a better name to call these things, these big
footers.
My favorite name for the Big Footers is Sasquatch. Please feel free to use
it as you see fit.
Chris
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:49 AM,
Jared mentioned that a sasquatch footer might be an indication
that your site lacks sensible / complete navigation elements. That
could definitely be true.
But, I think that precludes the case where the footer area serves as
an instant browsing tool. It's true that many users are on the site
for
http://www.att.com uses this navigation method as well and they call
it a link farm
I agree with Jared in his questioning of the investment.
I think these link farms are actually a way to appease the
business people who want their links on the front page.
Its a way for designers to clean up
I do think there is justification for a site like target.com, where
browsing products is the primary use case and dominates the global
navigation, but there are also clear-cut ancillary use cases that
must be served.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from
On Apr 24, 2009, at 4:54 AM, Coryndon Luxmoore wrote:
So, while people see them as helpful, the real question is if the
experience of the site is diminished when they are absent. If users
don't miss them, then why make the investment?
I would flip this question around a bit and ask does
Some of us seem to be assuming that the footer contains a site map,
straight up. And others are assuming it could be that OR a context
sensitive area for calling out interesting or related material /
resources.
I'm not thinking about lost users at all - if a user is lost and
needs a site map,
I think these types of footers serve as an extended courtesy
navigation for users that have already committed at least a moderate
level of interest in the site's content (as Dyske mentions above).
I do think the footer is a good place for them to appear.
I do not think these sitemap style
I also think that social networking has played a role. This now tends
to be the area where the site owner will note what social groups they
are registered with. In time, users will know that you should look at
the footer for this info. Soif the user is looking there already,
then it can be
I worked on a major redesign of Yahoo Sports a couple years ago which
included a detailed footer design:
http://sports.yahoo.com/
We did quite a bit of user testing on a new tabbed breadcrumb
style of top navigation for the site -- that nav is now gone, but you
can read about it here, R.I.P.
I think these types of footers serve as an extended courtesy
navigation for users that have already committed at least a moderate
level of interest in the site's content (as Dyske mentions above).
I do think the footer is a good place for them to appear.
I do not think these sitemap-style
A year ago I worked on a big website here in the Netherlands. It had a menu
at the top, but the exact same one at the bottom. It was used rather well,
because its' users really used the whole page. It's not exactly the same as
the footer sitemap, but is a large navigational component.
On Wed, Apr
On Apr 22, 2009, at 6:10 AM, Coryndon Luxmoore wrote:
I did some task basted research on a events site geared towards
college students. The detailed footer was used by the users when the
global navigation was unclear. So it functioned as a backup
navigation for the users. The users
In my opinion, the typical implementations of these footers are
only used when something else about the scent of information on the
page has failed. It's the same for breadcrumbs and site maps.
I have never seen a site that has a 100% success rate with no
mistakes, misinterpretations,
On Apr 23, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Coryndon Luxmoore wrote:
In my opinion, the typical implementations of these footers are
only used when something else about the scent of information on the
page has failed. It's the same for breadcrumbs and site maps.
I have never seen a site that has a 100%
I have noticed a trend in websites using big detailed footers that
contain site maps, but a lot more, like a mini-homepage. Look at the
bottom of these two pages for example:
http://www.americanidol.com/
http://seekingalpha.com/article/131737-five-ways-this-bubble-may-end
I understand this
I did some task basted research on a events site geared towards
college students. The detailed footer was used by the users when the
global navigation was unclear. So it functioned as a backup navigation
for the users. The users generally seemed to view it positively though
it was not an
Hello. I see these detailed footers on media sites, too, like
washingtonpost.com.
I think it serves readers who have detailed questions but little
interest in drilling down for procedural questions, like, How can I
stop my newspaper for a vacation?
It needs to be on the home page, but out of
Yes I have noticed that too and I really liked it. Infact strange as
it sounds I was up till 3 am in the morning just yesterday
redesigning the footer area of my blog(www.merlinvicki.in).
I dont think its just SEO. I think the big footer area provides more
info for the users and improves the
Me too, I'd love to hear more about this UI pattern from someone
who's tested it.
Thanks for bringing this up,
Jason R.
http://jasonrobb.com
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=41412
Likewise, in testing a sample of eight test participants, I've seen
five of them ignore it, one notice and say it looks cluttered, another
notice and say they liked it but he didn't use it, and one use it
exclusively over the top navigation.
Due to the last participant, we opted leave it
If it were indeed a site map, then I would suggest linking to it from
a top-level navigation area. There are more users familiar with a
typical site map link than with scrolling to the bottom of the screen
to find it there.
If it is not just a site map (perhaps containing additional material
in
I fear it adds glut to a page where much less quantity and more
relevant content could be more effective and better received by
users. On the other hand it could serve users well to give them more
open ended navigation and not impose too many specific assumptions
about what they really want.
. .
Ours was not a true site map -- I've rarely seen this pattern include
content deeper than the second level. We did have a link to this full
site map in our footer as well, which was worded like see full site
map or something similar -- I apologize for forgetting exactly what
it was, but
I agree with Jeff's concerns about page load, but I disagree that the
global navigation is the right place for a site map link. Rather, I
find that site maps are most often linked from the footer. If
that's the case, footers like this match the user expectation well.
- www.target.com uses this
This is something I realized recently, and thinking about it, it makes
perfect sense to me.
I think this is about knowing and understanding the difference
between the visitors who actually read your articles and who didn't.
It's sort of like how you should think if you were a store manager
at
i think it´s more a way to convey info so our users can access arear
easily when they reach the bottom of the page, making navigation easy
on them and helping them find their way around our sites, SEO is
important but is more important to give our user´s various ways of
finding contents; at least
We've used it in a site and I think that others have summed it up -
it's there as a more visible illustration of the top two levels of
the site to help users move laterally with greater ease. By tucking
it down at the footer it's less obtrusive but easily found when
reaching the bottom of the page
Forgive a girl a little shorthand for the sake of this medium?
I kept the footer because the business liked it, one participant
really relied on it, it did no substantial harm, it's an emerging
pattern, and I had worked with that previous UX consultant for
something like eight years and in
32 matches
Mail list logo
