Located: essays > satisfying site design

Satisfying site design: armchair exploring

Contents: essay start | 'case study' | introduction | myexperience.com | goals and perceptions | armchair exploring | lostmyway.com

The difference between perception of site structures

Is the Web a space - with users exploring browsing, surfing, shopping, chatting and interacting, or is it a window - with an endless range of views and sounds passing by and the user merely an armchair participant? The answer lies more in perception than literal analogy. In reality the Web is a disparate collection of single pages stored or built on computers all over the world, and sent to a personal computer upon request. When we talk about interaction, and creating an experience, we are talking more about changing the perception of the end user from viewer of a flat page on a screen to participant in an environment.

There appear two schools of thought on the best way to create this perception. Fleming is a strong proponent of the space concept, arguing that people perceive they are taking a journey through the Web whether intended by a site designer or not (Fleming 1998b, p. 1). She says that for most, navigation is about moving through that space to a final destination or goal, and that because of these aims navigation needs to answer the following questions: Where am I? Where can I go? How will I get there? How can I get back to where I once was? (Fleming 1998b, p. 5). She submits that within this space users need to know where they are - that there is little sense of 'you are here' on the Web. Nielsen agrees with this concept of status feedback and space, suggesting navigation's role is to visualise a user's current location and alternative movement relative to the structure of the underlying information architecture (Nielsen 1999, p. 189). Patrick Lynch suggests planning a Web site structure as a space, with organisation assisting users in creating a 'mental model' of the space. (Lynch & Horton 1997). McDonald and Stevenson (1998) speak of the problem of 'disorientation' when using the Web.

However, graphics user interface expert Bruce Tognazzini suggests the concept of space is an illusion that should be reduced if not avoided altogether. He suggests designers present the illusion that users are in the same place - perhaps an armchair- with content and work brought to them. (Tognazzini 1998), and argues that most users will not build elaborate mental maps of invisible navigation. Navigation must be reduced to a minimum, that which is left should be clear and natural. Tognazzini's concept suggests users should have a sense of static, and would tend to support the principle of linearity in navigation (Braun 1995), where users are offered a simple and predominantly uni-directional pathway. His view is offered some support by the 6th Annual GVU WWW Users Survey which indicated that in contrast with the smaller-scale hypertext experience (multimedia CD-ROMs may be an example), Web users did not report orientation as a high-ranking problem in using the World Wide Web (Pitkow J., 1996b). Citing results on navigation tool reliance, Nielsen (1999) suggests that slightly more than 50% of all Web users are search dominant and task oriented, with 20% link dominant (exploring) and the remaining 30% somewhere in between, depending on what tool most suited their methods. The reliance on search methods would indicate that users are requesting content without a need for orientation.

The explorer vs armchair argument is possibly best resolved as a combination of both schools of thought. Users can perceive data, content, a page or a site as a single entity if needed - with a linear path to and from it, but can also step back and perceive it as a much larger set with links to a variety of other options. This allows for the premise of designing to satisfy user goals and expectations illustrated in chapter 2. In a single session a user may not only call for specific information to be brought to him/her without worrying about how to get it, but moments later may spot something of interest and decide to step out into the virtual space and explore for a time, before coming back and seeking another specific piece of information. Tufte (1990) talks of this dual phenomena of information delivery and retrieval in terms of 'micro-macro design' and uses an example of a Javanese railroad timetable to illustrate the point (Tufte 1990, p. 24). The graphic timetable contains an enormously complex array of data with various pieces of information criss-crossing, and although it appears on face value confusing, a simple set of information axis allows users to pinpoint a particular train or time quickly and easily, while at the same time comparing that data with other data close by should the so desire.

If we were to apply the micro-macro design principle to Ken in his search for a new Commodore, we would structure the site so Ken could have the correct page with relevant information delivered right to his 'doorstep' (or armchair and window) but allowing him to then 'step out' (explore the Web space) by providing a set of pages related to his area of interest and goals. The concept would by nature influence the structure of the site design to meet those goals and objectives.