Re: Are Site Maps still a "best practice"?

I like that idea a lot. Be great to user test it.

LR




Sent from 'the road'

On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Roan Bear <[email protected]> wrote:

> One nice use of the site map is to present it on the custom 404 error
> page and if possible, when search results fail.
>
> Roan
>
> Ernest Kinsolving wrote:
>> Good point, Matty.  A site map is a tool, and a way of presenting
>> information; it's really neither intrinsically good nor bad.  For  
>> certain
>> sites and for certain purposes, it's a perfect way to communicate  
>> structure
>> to the user.  For others, it's (ideally) unnecessary except for the  
>> bots.
>> Like any other element of design, its value depends on the context.
>>
>> -- Ernest
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:32 AM, M S <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Er, while I think sitemaps may be necessary for bots to crawl,  
>>> don't you
>>> think you've failed the user if they need to rely on a sitemap to  
>>> get the
>>> lay of the land and navigate their way through the site?
>>>
>>> -Matty
>>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Hanhwe Kim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Carrie and Asta make excellent points. I remember a running into  
>>>> some
>>>> sites where it was exceedingly frustrating to navigate for various
>>>> reasons that I would have abandoned if it were not for the site  
>>>> map.
>>>> It doesn't happen that often but when you need the site map, it is
>>>> indeed the last resort.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:02 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just checked our usage reports and it looks like a mere 0.05%  
>>>>> of the
>>>>> page requests by non-bots are for the site map.  Probably far  
>>>>> fewer than
>>>>> 7% of our visitors, then.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I will keep the site map for two reasons:  One, the  
>>>>> 0.05% of
>>>>> users, and Two, the bots.  There are numerous pages on our other  
>>>>> public
>>>>> site that Googlebot et al. wouldn't be able to find and index,  
>>>>> were it
>>>>>
>>> not
>>>
>>>>> for the site map.  The site map provides the only path in via  
>>>>> links.
>>>>>
>>> (The
>>>
>>>>> other site's content isn't available to human users without  
>>>>> entering a
>>>>> search term -- which I think is a huge usability failure, but then
>>>>>
>>> Google
>>>
>>>>> itself has the same issue.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Genny Engel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe site maps should still be used. They should  
>>>>>> definitely not be
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> only way people navigate your site, but there is still a small
>>>>>>
>>> percentage
>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> people who may go to this when for one reason or another, they  
>>>>>> cant
>>>>>>
>>> find
>>>
>>>>>> what they are looking for on your site. To me, its like adding  
>>>>>> a "last
>>>>>> resort" for customers to stop them from abandoning your site  
>>>>>> from a
>>>>>> frustration that no one anticipated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Carrie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Zoey Kroll <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> I'm wondering if I should start including site maps in my  
>>>>>>> navigation
>>>>>>> recommendations, as a best practice. I had been under the  
>>>>>>> impression
>>>>>>> that a well-designed site shouldn't need a site map. A client  
>>>>>>> is now
>>>>>>> asking whether to include it or not. From a quick search, I  
>>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>> find any usability studies from 2009 or 2010 on the subject.  
>>>>>>> Most
>>>>>>> sites recommended site maps along the 'can't hurt' motto --  
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>> these do add one more item on the 'to create and maintain' list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nielson's '08 study indicates that 7% of people use it, and  
>>>>>>> that it's
>>>>>>> still a useful feature that should be included. http://www.useit.com/
>>>>>>> alertbox/sitemaps.html
>>>>>>> Jared Spool believes it is often a "design cop-out" that  
>>>>>>> addresses
>>>>>>> symptoms, but not the root of the issue. Does anyone have more
>>>>>>> current research, or thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Zoey
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
>>>>>>> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit
>>>>>>> http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
>>>>>> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit
>>>>>> http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list,  
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit
>>>>>
>>> http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
>>>> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit
>>>>
>>> http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
>>> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit
>>> http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
>> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
> To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions
_______________________________________________
This is the BayCHI Discussions mailing list, [email protected]
To change your subscription options, or to unsubscribe, visit http://baychi.org/mailman/listinfo/discussions