Site Mapping: Home Is Where the Hub Is

[Tami]

Site Mapping: Home Is Where the Hub Is

* By Keith Robinson.
* Date: Jul 22, 2005.

Article Description
Traditional web site organization conventions such as hierarchical site maps and top-down navigation schemes might not be the best way to address a user's findability needs. Keith Robinson discusses this issue, offering some alternative ways to get users to the content they need.

Related Book
Sams Teach Yourself Creating Web Pages All in One $31.49

I recently started a new position in which I have to think a bit differently: I used to be more of a web designer and coder, and now I'm more of an information architect. For the most part, I really enjoy the change; I still wear many hats, but I get to see web projects from a bit of a different vantage point now. I've also begun looking at many well-known web conventions in whole new ways. I'm into questioning convention, but I'm also very practical, so I try things, see what works and what doesn't, and adjust my thinking and way of working based on the results.
Thinking Outside the Box and Around the Arrows

Recently, I've been thinking about information architecture conventions and processes, one of which is the traditional hierarchical site map used for many sites. When I say "site map," I mean a way to visualize grouping of information, usually for smaller sites, not necessarily as a navigation technique. Some people refer to this as a page taxonomy, content blueprint, or by any of a host of other names.

I'm really questioning the traditional concept of "home down" in which a site map is presented, and how that hierarchical visualization (and often the groupings themselves) drives a site's design, content, and navigation. The concept of "home" is appropriate, although the idea that it's first or at the "top" of the site structure isn't really accurate in many cases. It makes more sense to visualize "home" at the center, as kind of a hub around which the site revolves. It's really about the way in which people search for information on the web.

Are the concepts of "home" and "web pages" and where they live in a site's organization always relevant? When talking to stakeholders, placement of web pages always causes at least some difficulty. I've spent hours trying to choose the right labels to satisfy every internal audience (let alone visitors!) and make sure that every bit of content is properly "bucketed." Everyone wants to reach a consensus as to where everything lives, which often leads to heated debate about where a page or piece of content is grouped.

Part of the problem stems from the idea that items on a web site can't live in more than one place within a taxonomy. This, my friends, is unrealistic, impractical, and, well...silly, in many cases. It may seem obvious to information architects, but it can be a real challenge to get stakeholders to see that it's okay to put things in more than one grouping, even if it's just via related item linking. Or, maybe a larger and more common issue, to get them to understand that it's okay to place something into a grouping where it might not exactly fit.

And then there's the home page. Stakeholders want to know what "lives" on the home page, and often have large internal struggles to get that issue sorted out. Such difficulties can lead to an ongoing maintenance drain as the home page is constantly reconfigured—let alone the effect of an ever-changing home page or hub page on users.

Stakeholders often don't realize that their stuff might get more visibility on internal content pages than on the home page. And it's not just internal stakeholders who have a problem with these ideas: For example, it always amazes me that people will pay more for one ad on the site's home page than for a load of internal page ads. That strategy doesn't make sense, especially when there's an opportunity to relate the ad to the content on the internal page, à la Google's AdSense.

Quite often, these struggles are next to meaningless when it comes to helping a user find what he or she wants. The fact that everything is conveniently grouped within a hierarchy and mapped down from a home page doesn't help everyone (or even most people) coming to the site looking for information. It can be very helpful to those who begin at the home page and browse through your site. However, as search engines become more accurate, and as web services and syndication spread content around the web and, in some cases, away from the web browser, starting from the home page will become less and less common.

I'm not trying to suggest that we shouldn't organize group content at all; I still feel that that's important. It helps searchers, browsers—everyone—to have some kind of consistent and accurate organization and grouping structure. My problem is with the idea that one organizational standard will make everyone happy; this will never be the case. As with many other web challenges we face, we need to reach a compromise in this area. Unfortunately, the nature of the site map deliverable and the process behind it don't really lend themselves to compromise or consensus. This problem creates a bloated process and quite a bit of effort that is ultimately wasted if it doesn't help people find what they're looking for.

Home Isn't Where the Start Is

"Home" as a single entry point to the site isn't really valid for most sites. However, it's hard to get beyond the idea that "home" is where you begin your quest to find something. Even Christina Wodtke, in her highly recommended book Information Architecture: Blueprints for the Web (New Riders, 2002, ISBN 0735712506), talks about typing in top-level domains to begin her searches. This is perfectly fine for her examples, but I question how common this behavior is now. For most things, I start with a search on Google or a local search engine.

Think about this. For many sites, most people enter the site via some page other than the home page (that is, if they see the site at all, with the rise in syndication and alternate ways to access web content). For my own site, Asterisk, most people come in via individual archive pages. Any large content site would have similar entry points. It's important to have a "home" or "hub" page, but it's equally important to address a visitor's navigational needs from more common entry points.

If you think of your web site as a maze (which, to your visitors, might be a very apt metaphor) with Start being the home page and End being the content they're seeking, most people are dropped in somewhere in the middle. It's important to get these people back to the Start, but more important to get them to what they're looking for. Consider Apple. I'd imagine that they have quite a few people arriving from Google via searches for iPod and MP3 player. Now, ideally the user would land on the desired page directly from Google, but if not, it's important for him to be able not only to get back to "home," but to continue searching from the page on which he landed.

It's About "Findability"

Visitors don't necessarily care where something lives on the web site, as long as they have no problem finding it. Traditional navigation that reflects (usually) a site map and its hierarchy is only one way for people to go through a site. Frankly, I feel that in most cases that design is pretty straightforward; if anything, designers and stakeholders complicate things by trying to make sure that everything is "living comfortably." The site map is important, but not as important as addressing the paths that people follow through your site in their quest for information.

Stakeholders also tend to want to make sure that content is prioritized. This is fine when talking about internal goals, and has some relevance when it comes to a site's visitors, but when someone is looking for content, that piece of content she wants is the most important bit on the site. What I'm getting at is that as business goals shift and audience and user needs change, the value placed on different sections and groupings of content will change as well. It's pretty hard to create a hierarchical site map that adjusts in real time to shifting priorities, goals, and needs—regardless of where they originate. Shouldn't more time be spent addressing the user's real needs? We should be helping her to find the information she's looking for and giving her options to keep her on track when traditional navigation fails. Items like these can produce a more helpful user experience:

* Proper metadata (particularly labels and page titles) for search relevancy
* Related item grouping and linking
* Indexes
* Links within content
* Faceted classification and corresponding navigation
* Folksonomies
* Personalized taxonomies
* A home page that acts less like a landing page and more like an information hub (or site map—oh, the irony)

A traditional hierarchal site map can't always illustrate these features, yet often it's perceived by clients and stakeholders as the final say when organizing content. It seems to be rather difficult to get people beyond the site map, even with such tools as wireframes, content inventories, and page description diagrams. Unless all site visitors think of the content in the same way as the internal stakeholders, and everyone has the same goals and needs, relying on a traditional site map might be expecting way too much.

[url=\"http://www.samspublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=402226&seqNum=3\"]source: Sam's Publishing[/url]