Lib, I don't think you should leave the list over one person's comments if you are benefiting from other people's feedback.
Libraries probably shouldn't fit under individual departments, but under the organisation's umbrella - I am particularly thinking of university libraries. If you are a specialised library (eg, music, medicine or law) then you should fit under the parent library which should fit under the main university's site. A particular department can link to your site from theirs, but you shouldn't fit into their hierarchy. Like you say, people use a library website for different reasons than a departmental website - you can even argue that a library forms its own department. You may even have need for specialised web templates if you have online catalogues or databases, etc. which may not fit in well with the purpose of the rest of the organisation's web templates. In my opinion, your 'breadcrumbs' or organisational structure, should probably look something like: Parent Org > Library > Specialised Library > (Subcategory >) Current Page or Parent Org > Library > (Subcategory >) Current Page If I was a user, that's how I would search for you on an organisation's website. Jason On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM, libwebdev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
