February 20, 2007

The 3-click rule

Is it important that users be able to get to any content in a website within 3 clicks?

We hear at least weekly of companies enforcing the “rule” that users must be able to get to any page in the site within 3 clicks. There are several problems with this rule.

One problem is scalability. In very large or complex websites and web applications, the rule just doesn’t scale. If your website has several hundred or more pages, to expect users to be able to get to any one of those pages in 3 clicks means you may be overloading the global navigation structure, the number of links on a page, or other mechanisms for getting from page to page. Trying to make sense of all of that information at once takes users a long time.

The 3-click rule also is what we call a false metric. Making pages accessible within 3 clicks has no inherent value as a metric to the users of a site or to your business goals. What might matter, though, is efficiency (how quickly users can complete their tasks) or how easily users can find what they need. Do users have to call tech support or use other resources that cost the company money to find the information they need?

In a wonderful paper called Designing for the Scent of Information, User Interface Engineering notes that what users do expect is that every click makes them more confident they’re on the right trail to get to the information they need. As long as users are confident they’re heading in the right direction, then they are not likely to abandon the site if it takes a click or two more to get where they’re going.

Filed under: Design, Content | Permalink

December 19, 2006

Instructional text on the page

When is instructional text on a page appropriate? When it is appropriate, how much is too much?

Instructional text should not be used to fix issues inherent in the design or content. First, discover and fix the issues that you can, then look at instructional text as one possible solution for what’s left over.

Begin by asking what elements on the page cause problems for the users. You can get this information from a combination of sources: usability studies, technical support calls, trainers who train new users, salespeople in the field, etc. Once you have the answer, ask yourself what can be done to fix the issues you identified. For example: Can the layout be changed to reduce clutter and make more obvious what the user is supposed to do next? Can field labels be changed so that they use language the user will understand?

For the subset of issues that cannot be fixed by changing the design or content, consider instructional text on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it’s the right solution. Also consider other solutions such as hover help, field-input examples, and small pop-up windows. In cases where you believe instructional text on the page might be the best answer, keep it short—no more than a sentence or two—and test it with users to determine whether the language and terminology are appropriate and helpful.

Filed under: Content, Design | Permalink

October 17, 2006

Forms vs. tables for data entry for a large number of fields

Aside from creating logical sets of fields, how else can we improve the usability of forms with a moderate to large number of fields? Is there a threshold between using a form and using a table?

There are many things to consider when designing forms or tables with a large data set. The first is your users and how they will use the form. If the data entry is single-use for consumers or other untrained users, it may be best to use a form instead of a table. On the other hand, if it is for trained users for whom efficiency is critical, or if it is for maintaining a data set over time (especially if users are likely to change only a subset of data at a time), then a table may be better.

Tables also can make sense where the data are not sequential, such as entering player statistics for sports. Tables can be easier to scan, and Help can go on the row/column headings if needed.

If the data entered are unique from field to field, such as tax data, then consider using multiple pages or tabs to break out the data on a form. If the data are sequential, then tabs are a good way to go. If users may go back to the form to change or edit information over time, a read-only view could be shown displaying all information, with different sections editable as needed.

Filed under: Content, Design | Permalink

October 05, 2006

Internationalization and phone numbers

We are redesigning our registration form. We've had a debate as to the best method of presenting a phone number field in a form for international users. We can leave one long field, or we can set the phone field appropriately depending on the country (for example, 3 separate fields for U.S. and Canada: one field for area code, another field for the first set of 3 digits, and another field for the second set of 4 digits). What are your thoughts on this?

Both solutions are appropriate, but certain types of users and certain types of usage make one answer more likely to be correct than the other. If the users are trained “expert users,” such as call center reps who enter international phone numbers all day long, then a single long field for numeric values may be more appropriate. A single field may be quicker, depending on technology that might require the users to wait for the form to refresh after a value such as “Country” is entered in the form.

For consumer users of a single-use application, if the phone number is a critical field (for instance, if the form data will be used to ship items and an invalid phone number will delay or prevent shipping), then validation becomes more critical. Here, breaking out the correct format into multiple fields (perhaps even with examples) may be your best solution.

Auto-tab is also a consideration when the fields are broken out. Generally, we think this is not good for single-use applications, as we’ve seen users get confused when they make a mistake (“How do I go back to the field before this one?”), but test this with your users to make sure.

Lastly, Jakob Nielsen has a good Alertbox column about the minimal requirements for international sites.

Good luck—let us know what you choose and how it works for your users.

Filed under: Content, Design | Permalink

August 02, 2006

Long versus short pages

Which is better—long scrolling pages, or short pages that don’t scroll?

We hear this question often. There is no hard and fast rule, but there are a few considerations when deciding on the right answer for your website or web application. Ask yourself the following questions to help decide which approach to use.

Is the content a form for users to fill out, or information for users to read?

If the content is primarily for users to read, such as a scholarly article, longer pages may be better, since users will expect that they’re going to take time to process the information anyway. This doesn’t mean you should have a 20-page document on a single page, but it’s generally OK to have longer pages the deeper someone goes into a site. For long content meant to be read online, provide a summary and/or list of contents at the top, and break the content into logical chunks with section headers so users can scan the sections more easily. Also, documents that are likely to be printed should have a printable view that follows visual design guidelines for printed documents.

If the content is a long form, you have more questions to ask yourself.

Is the form something that users are likely to fill out in one relatively short sitting, or is it something users will likely go partway through, save, and come back to?

In cases where users are likely to be interrupted or take more than one session to fill out the data, it may be better to break the information into shorter chunks across several pages. Save the information so that users can come directly back to where they left off.

Are the users filling out the form frequently as a core part of their job, are they filling it out infrequently, or only once?

Some applications or websites are used primarily by people who are data entry clerks, filling out the same forms over and over again. For these users, efficiency is very important. Often, their performance reviews are based in part on how quickly they can fill out Form X, or how many Form X’s they fill out in a given period. Generally, longer pages are more efficient for these users, since over time they enter data by tabbing through fields, and they tend to use the mouse less frequently than some other user populations.

For forms in which the user population will be infrequent or single-use users, it’s often better to break out the information across several pages, rather than in one long scrolling page, but again, this depends on the specific situation and the type of information users are being asked to provide.

In all instances, one of the most common mistakes we see is a long page without enough visual indication that the page is scrollable. Be careful to design a long page so that it is obvious that more information exists “below the fold.” View how the page looks in different monitor resolutions and with different browsers to help avoid this problem.

Lastly, if you’re still not sure which approach to take, test more than one approach with your users and let them decide.

Filed under: Content, Design | Permalink