Re: Secondary Nav Bar

[Claus Schwarm <c schwarm gmx net>]

Hi,

just a small note:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:41:46 +0200
Quim Gil <qgil desdeamericaconamor org> wrote:

> I have two concerns with detached secondary nav bars:
>
> - They are detached  :)  and not always it is clear the dependency of
> the secondar nav block over the primary nav bar. [...] I think this
> is risky, disorientating.

A Google search on '"web usability" vertical horizontal "navigation
bars"' didn't reveal any hints that people get confused by splitted
bars.

On the other hand, there's much about not to dissappoint 'Viewing
habits' because "Users have gradually become accustomed to particular
layouts and phrases" [1].

A top horizontal navigation bar, and a reacting secondary navigation
on the right or the left is probably such a thing. I also remember
something about people being confused by 'trees' althought they make the
connections of levels and sublevels absolutely clear. Two connected
horizontal bars are basically a 'tree'.

And this is even worse because it's basically a long horizontal line.
We all know people have problems reading long lines, especially on the
web.

Additionally, our audience is surfing the web every day for probably
one hour, if not more. It's hardly believable that they will be
disorientated by one or two seperate link boxes.

Next, you will probably not get around another vertical navigation box
since there is likely to be a third navigation level, as I mentioned
several times already now.


> - They cause extra repetition of terms. The Ubuntu page has "Support"
> in the primary nav, in the header of the secondary and the title. The
> SAS page has "Products & Solutions" also 3 times. Not optimal, I
> think.

That's because they pack too much stuff into a single site, which is
a very common error. [2]


Cheers,
Claus


[1]
http://www.webcredible.co.uk/user-friendly-resources/web-usability/basics.shtml
[2] http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030616.html