Forum Moderators: open
So having a good number different clues on a page for the same thing can make a real improvement in usability.
-- Redundant Cues for Links --
For instance, by default links are a different color AND they are underlined. Remove one of those clues that say "I'm a link" and you're going to confuse a few more people. Remove them both and you're in big trouble.
Now add in a hover behavior - that's a third redundant clue. And it gets even better if the background color changes on hover (a fourth redundancy), as well as the text color.
Just a few minutes ago I was on a site that had no hover behavior. I was momentarily confused as to whether that underlined word (same color as the other text) was really a link. Not only that, but there was a second underlined phrase on the line just below. With no hover behvaior, it wasn't clear whether this was one link with a line break, or two different links.
-- More Redundundancy --
Can visitors navigate a site from the bottom of the page? Once primary navigation is scrolled away, it's good usability, in my experience, to have site navigation of some kind at the bottom of the page. Someone who just read that far should be rewarded by having you make their life a little bit easier.
-- Rendundancy in Copy --
This is just a bit off-topic for this particular forum, but another example of important rendundancy comes into play in the copy. I find that writing for the web requires more use of the actual noun - the name of the thing. In print, we might use a pronoun or some other word that refers back to a subject we mentioned previously.
But on the web, we're better off in many cases using the actual noun again. People are often skimming and may have not read the earlier sentence that sets up the pronoun.
also the actual words of the link can make it clear its a link ("Privacy Policy", "About this Company", "Home Page", you get the idea..).
i guess what i'm getting at is there are other cues than coloring and rollover states which alert the user to links.
as far as links in content text, i think as long as there is _somekind_ of visual cue which differentiates them from the surrounding text, users have become used to identifying them as links. i would simply make them a different color - say red text for links, with maybe an underline when you place the cursor over it (or vice versa).
at the end of the day its simple to check if a link is a link by placing the cursor over the link and watching it change to the "pointing hand of truth" ;-)
---
i totally agree on bottom page navigation being very useful though - not only for users but for search engine spiders that may be confused by stuff like flash/javascript powered navigation nearer the top (like dropdown menu scripts and stuff)
I dont agree, when you are on the information scent you are quickly scanning not reading, I have no time for sites that dont distinguish text links clearly. I just makes it that little bit more difficult.
>..have site navigation of some kind at the bottom of the page
I never realised how importnat this was until a client was reviewing a site I built. He quickly read each page, scrolling down and was then annoyed that each time he had to scroll back up to the navigation.
With the bottom links, it just makes it so much more usable, especially if the current pages link is selected - or some other way of letting you know where you are, where youve been and not been etc.
at the end of the day its simple to check if a link is a link by placing the cursor over the link and watching it change to the "pointing hand of truth"
I think links help to maintain interest on a site. Essentialy they are adverts for what else the user can find by sticking around. Why remove or risk removing this natural stickyness by making them difficult to spot.
1. Different size from the body text
2. Different color
3. Different position (such as a hanging indent)
4. Different letter spacing
5. Different font
6. Different line-height (for two line headers)
7. Different font weight
One of the best tips I collected early on came from Robin Williams' book, "Web Design foe the Non-Designer" -- and no, this isn't Mork, it's a very smart lady. She said that when you're making one thing different from another, then make the contrast B I G instead of creating only a very small difference.
Her advice became a major part of how I design.
I think redudancy is where something isnt necesary, and adds nothing, for example lots of lines separating content when there is a good grid based layout anyway using spacing and alignment - newspaper columns.
I agree with what you are saying , but is it redundancy?
Good point :)
A "Contact Us" link both at the top and the bottom of the page is an example of redundancy.
Marking your headers with a different font is more of a consistency than redundancy...
I thouroughly agree with all your points. Basically the brighter you can make the light the easier it is too see, hence more-avoidance from obscuring the links, is a definite.
Furthermore, links at the bottom of the page is something as yet i have'nt delved into, but will consider for any of the longer doc's that i may publish in the future.
Push-come-to-shove, the bare minimum would be redundant header and footer site nav (text links).
Be forwarned, I've only had 20 oz of coffee so far --gears don't begin to mesh until well into the 2nd mug.
My first usability concern involves "scanning and scrolling." I operate under the assumption that the user is doing the first and hates the later. If he's there for the reasons I think he's there for, he's going to click the first option he happens to connect with. But, he's scanning, nor has he really grasped the site layout fully. Also, there's a danger that he's either partially tuned-out some of the design elements or -worse- misinterpreted them and mentally written them off as not being what he wants. So, the footer nav is a sort of usability error-trapping; he's there because I couldn't entice him into action earlier on the page.
>wouldn't it be just as usable to provide site navigation in one consistent space throughout the site
Basically, my concerns are (A) he missed it and (B) having missed it, he's too lazy to go back and look for it.
On most of my sites the "redundancy" can border on being obnoxious but it seems to work. Rather than trying to "hide" the important information or make it blend in to the rest of the site it needs to stand out (H1 tags, bold text, proper link colors, etc.).
at the end of the day its simple to check if a link is a link by placing the cursor over the link and watching it change to the "pointing hand of truth" ;-)
I've been to sites where they disabled this- and it was very confusing because the link looked like ordinary text (wasn't underlined, didn't have the associated "pointing hand", link reference couldn't be seen at the bottom) and yet if you clicked on the group of words, you were sent elsewhere. Can't think of why they chose to set it up this way.
Redundancy and consistency are both useful. Consistency is easier to follow and saves the viewer's time (if the overall functionality corresponds to some sort of standard). Redundancy that's (dare I say it) "respectful" of the user- isn't clutter and isn't annoying or overwhelming is extremely helpful to users. For example, replying to this post- Brett's set it up so we can reference a particular page's discussion which is helpful as an aid. There are further tools to the left of our message that open up new windows if we need a reminder about the style codes, posting guidelines, etc. In other forums, you'd have to leave the page, scroll down the page, lose sight of the thread, etc. just to access this info.
RCJordan- I'm particularly interested in your massive nav technique. I've worked for several large companies (including Fortune 500) where I've felt this worked against them and also made the page more challengine for SEO purposes. I could find the info I needed faster with any one of the following: simple nav, search tool, site map.
There are so many different ways to present navigation, that if you put several on your page, you're bound to have at least one method that your visitor is familiar with, and they can navigate more quickly, instead of taking a moment to find their way. Impatience seems to be the one thing everyone on the web has in common. ;)
I guess the most needed thing still missing on most sites is the "Do-What-I-Want" or the "Show-Me-What-I-Am-Looking-For"-Button. *G*
What is important though: redunduncy should not destroy style. *Consistent* formatting is important throughout the pages and the documents. I leave this hard part always to the DSSSL stylesheets [docbook.sourceforge.net]. They take care that, say, an admonition will appear consistently as such with whatever style elements are aproppriate for the format (online or print).
Actually, I don't care about formatting. The DSSSL stylesheets take care of this. I concentrate on content and cross-referencing. The rest is put in place by the stylesheets and I find it good so. It's a good way to separate content from formatting (and to automate the creation of redunduncy a bit by choosing DSSSL stylesheets that create rich navigation elements, like header, footer, table of contents, list of figures and index).
[edited by: tedster at 6:37 am (utc) on Feb. 7, 2003]
[edit reason] <remove url> [/edit]
But the usablility flaw is that backing up two or three pages, or returning for a second visit to check out page 4 another time becomes a bit of an ordeal.
It takes extra work, and on first glance it might *seem* redundant, to provide links TO every page FROM every page in the article. This linking style is a usability ehancement for human visitors and spiders alike.
