Hi - Here are the reponses I received from the question I posted last week
asking for ideas for alternative tree UIs.
Thanks to all who reponded!
Kay Corry Aubrey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Email mailto:[email protected]
with any comments, questions or problems
CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[email protected]
MODERATORS: mailto:[email protected]
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ: www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I have found working with trees in a mindmap format to be helpful. On my
(Windows XP) desktop I use Freemind http://freemind.sourceforge.net and
recently started using comapping http://ww.comapping.com online. Being able
to see labels located in close proximity to one another (a facet-area) works
for me as a way to quickly scan elements of a collection and get a feel for
relationships.
Regards,
Michael Everitt
Informativity
-----Original Message-----
From: ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kay Corry Aubrey
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 9:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Alternate navigation structures for a tree
Hi - I am wondering if people can suggest alternative Uis to a tree
structure as a primary navigation method. The product has rich and deep
functionality. It uses an Explorer-style tree for product navigation, and
this presents a number of obstacles for users.
For one, they need to know the precise node to click to find their stuff,
they can't see what is under the node and some of the information lies 4-5
levels down. Because everything is presented on the same plane so there is
no indication on where to start. Using a tree in this context presents many
other types of problems, though the tree's organization is very well thought
out and seems appropriate to the domain.
We are going to offer multiple ways of navigating the product, search, by
task, etc. However, it would be cool to also translate the existing tree
into other navigational formats that are less overwhelming, offers more
guidance, and can show users the range of choices they have for their task.
We will likely segment the taxonomy into facets.
Can people point me to examples on the web that are successful in presenting
a complex taxonomy in a very simple UI that might spark ideas? Please send
your responses to me - I will collect and summarize.
Thanks -
Kay
Kay Corry Aubrey
Usability Resources Inc
End user research and interaction design for software
www.UsabilityResources.net 781-275-3020
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Email mailto:[email protected]
with any comments, questions or problems
CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[email protected]
MODERATORS: mailto:[email protected]
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ: www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Email mailto:[email protected]
with any comments, questions or problems
CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[email protected]
MODERATORS: mailto:[email protected]
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ: www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Kay,
I'm dealing with the same problem, and I'd love to hear what responses
you get. A big question is of course how much information is contained
in each node, and how much of it you always want to display.
One (space-consuming) visualization that I think you could use to
traverse a tree of 4-5 levels is presented in a series of articles for
the weblog "Boxes and Arrows":
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the-challenge-of
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/introduction-to-the
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/building-block
http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/connectors-for
(more articles upcoming, I believe)
These articles talk about creating a multi-level portal-style (or
'dashboard') GUI based on the idea of containers within containers. A
container in this context is (in descending order of size): a Web site,
a Web site section, a page, a large box on a page (such as a content
area or a sidebar area), and a small box on a page (something the size
of one weblog entry or news article, for example). Containers share
common controls, such as 'print', 'search' or 'send by e-mail'.
It occurred to me that you could use these various containers to
represent the different levels of a hierarchical tree, offering a way of
navigating through the hierarchy that is both familiar and natural to
users. Also, typically, the deepest nodes in a tree contain the most
information, which this model provides for.
The problem is that this visualization can take up a lot of space, which
may force you to place the contents of a node into a separate browser
window, or otherwise force you to separate the navigation from the
content. As I said, it really depends on the amount of information
contained in each node.
Hope this helps,
Mathijs Panhuijsen
-----Original Message-----
From: ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kay Corry Aubrey
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 18:52
To: [email protected]
Subject: Alternate navigation structures for a tree
Hi - I am wondering if people can suggest alternative Uis to a tree
structure as a primary navigation method. The product has rich and deep
functionality. It uses an Explorer-style tree for product navigation,
and
this presents a number of obstacles for users.
For one, they need to know the precise node to click to find their
stuff,
they can't see what is under the node and some of the information lies
4-5
levels down. Because everything is presented on the same plane so there
is
no indication on where to start. Using a tree in this context presents
many
other types of problems, though the tree's organization is very well
thought
out and seems appropriate to the domain.
We are going to offer multiple ways of navigating the product, search,
by
task, etc. However, it would be cool to also translate the existing tree
into other navigational formats that are less overwhelming, offers more
guidance, and can show users the range of choices they have for their
task.
We will likely segment the taxonomy into facets.
Can people point me to examples on the web that are successful in
presenting
a complex taxonomy in a very simple UI that might spark ideas? Please
send
your responses to me - I will collect and summarize.
Thanks -
Kay
Kay Corry Aubrey
Usability Resources Inc
End user research and interaction design for software
www.UsabilityResources.net
781-275-3020
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Email mailto:[email protected]
with any comments, questions or problems
CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[email protected]
MODERATORS: mailto:[email protected]
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ: www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s),and may not be passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the addressee(s).SDL Tridion rules out any and every liability resulting from any electronic transmission.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Email mailto:[email protected]
with any comments, questions or problems
CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[email protected]
MODERATORS: mailto:[email protected]
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ: www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for this, I can provide a URL:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa511496.aspx
=20
Check under 'Is this the right control?'
This section does conclude, however:
"You must use a tree view if you need to display a hierarchy of more =
than two levels (not including the root node)."
=20
I personally don't agree with that statement. I feel that hierarchy is =
often fairly artificial to the user (even if they do know directory =
trees), and more a type of structure that software developers are =
comfortable with. It's also often unrelated to actual conceptual =
taxonomy.
=20
M
=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Corry Aubrey [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 15:13
To: Mathijs Panhuijsen
Subject: FW: Alternate navigation structures for a tree
=20
=20
I've received 2 responses, aside from yours, so far..
=20
Kay
=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Lorenzo Pastrana [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 12:18 PM
To: Kay Corry Aubrey
Subject: Re: Alternate navigation structures for a tree
=20
=20
Hi Kay,
=20
Kay Corry Aubrey a =E9crit :
> We are going to offer multiple ways of navigating the product, search, =
> by task, etc. However, it would be cool to also translate the existing =
> tree into other navigational formats that are less overwhelming,=20
> offers more guidance, and can show users the range of choices they =
have
for their task.
> We will likely segment the taxonomy into facets.=20
=20
There is a nice article on MS website (can't provide an url right now) =
on
alternatives to treeviews, I think it's in the vista design guidelines.
Basicaly it states that you can browse a tree (witch is a list of lists =
of
lists of...) using a list+content view at each level.
=20
The main advantage, as I understood it, is the abscence of the unique
display/choice paradigm that you face in the treeview.
=20
Using a simple list and content pane at each level (you can nest a =
couple of
levels if needed) allows you to use a variety of typologic, topologic, =
and
graphical solutions to convey a particular meaning depending on each
case/level/node etc. Thus getting users to travese some initial levels
without even thinking they are.
=20
Of course that 'magic' only operates if those levels are designed to be
'usage oriented' :
=20
> For one, they need to know the precise node to click to find their=20
> stuff, they can't see what is under the node and some of the=20
> information lies 4-5 levels down. Because everything is presented on=20
> the same plane so there is no indication on where to start. Using a=20
> tree in this context presents many other types of problems, though the =
> tree's organization is very well thought out and seems appropriate to =
the
domain.
=20
I think however, that you might get to question the tree itself in the =
end
... Is the tree 'object-centric' or is it 'usage-centric' ? My =
conception of
a taxonomy (as you say) is that it works well in the definition-domain =
and
that it's a good way to represent entities in memory on a computer or
programmer point of view. But on a usage point of view, you would =
organize
access to the entities in a different way.
=20
I'd dare an example : in a car's physical taxonomy the tree root would =
be
the chassis, branching down to the tires, pedals and door handles; but =
on a
usage point of view who would ever think of the chassis in the first =
place ?
=20
My 2 cents.
Lo.
=20
=20
This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee(s),and may not be =
passed on to, or made available for use by any person other than the =
addressee(s).SDL Tridion rules out any and every liability resulting =
from any electronic transmission.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Email mailto:[email protected]
with any comments, questions or problems
CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[email protected]
MODERATORS: mailto:[email protected]
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ: www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kay,
=20
I believe that there are several alternatives to a blasphemous tree view
structure:
=20
1. Content Links=20
By providing content links, users can easily scan information. This also
increases efficiency as the clicking effort is reduced as compared to =
tree
view navigation.=20
=20
According to GOMS methodology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOMS> , the
number of clicks needed to gain information should be at its minimal.=20
=20
2. Dashboard View=20
A page with the top level navigation links displayed upfront will =
definitely
help users gain momentum before they step into it deeper. The =
disadvantage
that tree view provides is the fact that it confuses users with too many
structures upfront. By providing a page with the key links upfront, =
users
will not be overwhelmed as they see a clean layout that describes =
content.=20
=20
3. Keep It Simple
Keep it simple. That's the key. The language used in most tree view
structures often make users cringe as they are already overwhelmed by =
its
length and depth. Keeping the language simple will help users gain a =
better
understanding of what's happening and also a clear welcoming feeling =
before
they begin looking for information.=20
=20
The greatest fear that users face is when they encounter a navigation
structure that contains sub-level navigation within the top level =
navigation
at the same place. Users need a distinction between the two. So separate =
it
for them.=20
=20
4. Use Horizontal Space
Tree views often take up space vertically and not horizontally. This =
adds to
the confusion as users move in one direction with too many nodes being
displayed. To allow breathing space, try using space horizontally. To =
ensure
this happens, we need to replace a tree view structure with content =
links as
mentioned above.=20
=20
5. Abuse Fitts's Law=20
Fitts's Law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts'_law> "predicts the =
time
required to rapidly move to a target area, as a function of the distance =
to
the target and the size of the target." Knowing this, a tree view =
structure
is a definite no-no! By providing content links, users can not only =
target it
easily, but they can also view them upfront rather than having to move
through sub categories at the same place.=20
=20
Here are my observations without examples from the web. I'm sure someone =
else
can contribute to this as I would love to receive them as well. :-)
=20
Cheers,
Afshan
=20
=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kay Corry Aubrey
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 11:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Alternate navigation structures for a tree
=20
Hi - I am wondering if people can suggest alternative Uis to a tree
structure as a primary navigation method. The product has rich and deep
functionality. It uses an Explorer-style tree for product navigation, =
and
this presents a number of obstacles for users.=20
=20
For one, they need to know the precise node to click to find their =
stuff,
they can't see what is under the node and some of the information lies =
4-5
levels down. Because everything is presented on the same plane so there =
is
no indication on where to start. Using a tree in this context presents =
many
other types of problems, though the tree's organization is very well =
thought
out and seems appropriate to the domain.=20
=20
We are going to offer multiple ways of navigating the product, search, =
by
task, etc. However, it would be cool to also translate the existing tree
into other navigational formats that are less overwhelming, offers more
guidance, and can show users the range of choices they have for their =
task.
We will likely segment the taxonomy into facets.=20
=20
Can people point me to examples on the web that are successful in =
presenting
a complex taxonomy in a very simple UI that might spark ideas? Please =
send
your responses to me - I will collect and summarize.=20
=20
Thanks -=20
=20
Kay
=20
=20
=20
Kay Corry Aubrey
Usability Resources Inc
End user research and interaction design for software
www.UsabilityResources.net
781-275-3020
=20
=20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Email mailto:[email protected]
with any comments, questions or problems
CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[email protected]
MODERATORS: mailto:[email protected]
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ: www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER:
This message (including attachment if any) is confidential and may be =
privileged. If you have received this message by mistake please notify =
the sender by return e-mail and delete this message from your system. =
Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this message in whole or in =
part is strictly prohibited.
E-mail may contain viruses. Before opening attachments please check them =
for viruses and defects. While MindTree Consulting Limited (MindTree) =
has put in place checks to minimize the risks, MindTree will not be =
responsible for any viruses or defects or any forwarded attachments =
emanating either from within MindTree or outside.
Please note that e-mails are susceptible to change and MindTree shall =
not be liable for any improper, untimely or incomplete transmission.
MindTree reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all =
messages sent to or from MindTree e-mail address. Messages sent to or =
from this e-mail address may be stored on the MindTree e-mail system or =
else where.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tip of the Day: Email mailto:[email protected]
with any comments, questions or problems
CHI-WEB: www.sigchi.org/web POSTINGS: mailto:[email protected]
MODERATORS: mailto:[email protected]
SUBSCRIPTION CHANGES & FAQ: www.sigchi.org/web/faq.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.