September 7th, 2004
Where am I?
Had an interesting discussion today at work, mostly based on branding, but it made me think about some interesting things about user orientation. How many times have you asked yourself “Does this navigation work?”, or how many times has a project manager/client/boss asked “how does the user know where they are?”. My guess is quite a few.
A lot of these question focus totally on UI and design and not on what the user wants. Really when these people are asking these questions they really mean “i don’t understand this design” or “I don’t know where I am”. They are thinking of the user, but they’re thinking of them as being like them.
Here’s where I go out on a limb. I’m suggesting users don’t actually care where they are, they care what they are doing. This might seem obvious to some, and to me, but then I really started thinking about it.
If a person is reading about, say family history, on the ITV website. They then follow a link to another website about family history, do they know they are in another website? Probably. Do they care about brand affinity when they are in a different website? Are they aware of a different brand? probably not. Because they are reading about history.
Location isn’t an issue. The task is.
It’s similar in a car park. When you drive into a car park, you are focussed on finding a space nearest to your destination, this is your goal. Do you care about the design of the car park? No. You only care about it when it goes wrong and you’re directed up the wrong way or you can’t find the exit. It’s exactly the same with websites.
Brand and navigation should be designed to be invisible. What I mean by that is they shouldn’t get in the way of the users tasks, they should support them and help them when they feel they need it.
I know i’m rambling but I wanted to get this down on paper so to speak so I don’t forget it. Feel free to argue…
Glad you’ve realised this — I think information architecture can be a bit short sighted. The stated aim is often that a user is able to find everything that they want on your site. Or to put another way, that the user understands and has a clear mental picture of your site. When actually, they don’t really care about your site at all — the stated objective is just a form of vanity and self preoccupation.
But maybe architecture has always been about trying to get the organisation/institution noticed while you’re trying to find the exit. The more lost you are, the more you see of the building.
I think it’s a lot less about getting users to know your entire structure and more about giving them the right signposts at the right time.
A lot can be learnt from interpretation signage, in say a museum or gallery, where there is a lot of attention given to the flow of visitors. It’s about quick visual cues for iconography, drawing on conventions and standards rather than creativity, to guide people to say the toilets or to the section on rocks.
Trying to pre-empt peoples needs in their task, and giving them choices based on that task, is key. Not trying to show them everything at once.
The tricky think for Information Architects is trying to balance the users requirements with the business need, which is often the key driver for wanting every option visible.
I certainly like this idea, but it seems to me that such a minimalist style of Information design would hurt the company itself. Although revenue could still be raised through direct advertising (via Google Adwords or another agency) and through a web site store, valuable “sub-conscience” advertising would be completely crippled without the branding package being visibly noticeable. Am I incorrect?