E-mail List Archives
Thread: Site maps
Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)
From: Glenda
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2005 1:05PM
Subject: Site maps
No previous message | Next message →
I am probably igniting another heated debate by posting this question. Oh
well. Does anyone have guidelines are designing a site map?
I am auditing a site, which, personally, is lacking structure and
organization. I am recommending that, when a redesign is being considered,
the site map [http://www.s4dac.org/site.html] be redone first to provide the
necessary structure. From there pages can be moved or deleted.
I envision a site map as an outline, composed of nested lists, showing the
hierarchy of pages. I understand there's also the alphabetizedl and
categorized approaches. I am interested in hearing others' comments, so
that I can prepare myself in case I'm the one doing the redesign.
Thanks,
Glenda
Glenda Watson Hyatt, Principal
Soaring Eagle Communications
Accessible websites. Accessible content. Accessible solutions.
www.eaglecom.bc.ca
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.0 - Release Date: 3/21/05
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2005 1:17PM
Subject: Re: Site maps
← Previous message | Next message →
glenda wrote:
>I am probably igniting another heated debate by posting this question. Oh
>well. Does anyone have guidelines are designing a site map?
>
>I am auditing a site, which, personally, is lacking structure and
>organization. I am recommending that, when a redesign is being considered,
>the site map [http://www.s4dac.org/site.html] be redone first to provide the
>necessary structure. From there pages can be moved or deleted.
>
>I envision a site map as an outline, composed of nested lists, showing the
>hierarchy of pages. I understand there's also the alphabetizedl and
>categorized approaches. I am interested in hearing others' comments, so
>that I can prepare myself in case I'm the one doing the redesign.
>
>
This has to be the most confusing site map I have ever seen...
You are right, the hierarchical approach is IMHO the best as well. If
there are a lot of pages, it might not make sense to list them all but
just go down to a certain level and offer a categorised map, A-Z index
and a good site search as other means of finding your way. After all
visitors are likely to look for content than being interested in your
site hierarchy.
From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Thu, Mar 24 2005 7:43PM
Subject: Re: Site maps
← Previous message | Next message →
Lists38 wrote:
"This has to be the most confusing site map I have ever seen..."
Wow, where have you been?
Jim
Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
512-306-0931
From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Fri, Mar 25 2005 1:57AM
Subject: Re: Site maps
← Previous message | Next message →
jim wrote:
>Lists38 wrote:
>
>"This has to be the most confusing site map I have ever seen..."
>
>Wow, where have you been?
>
>
The provided example of course...
http://www.s4dac.org/site.html
From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Mar 25 2005 7:19AM
Subject: Re: Site maps
← Previous message | Next message →
Debate is good! Passionate, heated debate with respectful consideration
of others is better!
I don't have a guideline for you, but I do have an opinion! :)
1. Lacking structure and organization a sitemap might reflect that very
same disorganization.
2. The sitemap shouldn't only follow the exact outline structure of the
site, it could also provide some indexing and/or cross-reference
function that allows the users to find what they need.
Consider the following outline structure as representing your
sitemap, listed by hierarchy index, name, & category:
1.0.0, A, INFO
1.1.0, D, MEDIA
2.0.0, B, INFO
2.1.0, E, MEDIA
2.2.0, F, MEDIA
2.3.0, G, PRINT
2.3.1, J, INFO
2.3.2, I, MEDIA
2.4.0, H, INFO
3.0.0, C, CONTACT
<option to sort by: default (physical), alphabetical, last
updated, upcoming events, category>
where your actual web site could be represented by:
3.0.0, C, CONTACT
2.3.0, G, PRINT
2.3.1, J, INFO
2.3.2, I, MEDIA
1.0.0, A, INFO
1.1.0, D, MEDIA
2.4.0, H, INFO
2.0.0, B, INFO
2.1.0, E, MEDIA
2.2.0, F, MEDIA
Besides the fact that organization helps in understanding
content (I'm sure some real information architects could speak on this
subject) and moral support that organization of the website you
reference would help everyone, did the current sitemap reflect an
attempt to communicate something that isn't obvious? Date of posting?
Perceived importance? Frequency of use?
You start to address that with the options to sort your sitemap.
I think the expectation is defaulted to file-structure style layout
(tree hierarchy) but *I* think being able to sort the content would
increase usability. Sort by last update, most used, upcoming events, or
by user's preference.
The other thing I would like to mention is the navigation. On
the sitemap, *I* find that eliminating most of the navigation menus is
important. The navigation menus on the left and right are 'at odds' with
the main content (the 'definitive' navigation expected by the user in
this instance). I don't think having a skipnav to main content is all
that helpful. I think sitemaps are 'special' from the main site
structure (that is, they shouldn't necessarily carry any navigation or
branding because the rest of the web site is templated that way) in a
similar way I view search results - give me what I *need* and nothing
else. It is a FUNCTION not just generic information.
Regards,
Norman Robinson
From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Apr 01 2005 9:33AM
Subject: Re: Site maps
← Previous message | No next message
This just in: http://alistapart.com/articles/sprucemaps/ may be of use
to you.
Regards,
Norman