When not to phone "Home" Options

[cre8pc]

I attend an Interfaith church and every Sunday we have a 2 hour long "Celebration". We never know what to expect from a minister that loves to dance and yesterday was no exception. We did a "Swirl Dance" whereby everyone in the congregation joins hands and, with the minister leading, we snake around the room in a series of circles, similar to a tribal dance. There's a drum in the background, and we're singing and after awhile, many of us are laughing so hard we can barely stand up!

As the circle got tighter and tighter and people were squished closer and closer together, one of my friends turns to me and says "I hope you're not claustrophobic!" Well, actually I am. But just as it seemed there was nowhere else to go in the circle, we were led out into wider and wider circles until we were back home, all standing in one large open circle again. The snake had uncoiled.

All this reminds me of website navigation.

Today's http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.html
Alertbox entry from Jakob Nielsen is called "The Ten Most Violated Homepage Design Guidelines". In it he says,

10. Don't include an active link to the homepage on the homepage.

This has always been one of the criteria in my usability tests and it's one of the check points in my new http://www.cre8pc.com/ringbell.html - Please Ring Bell for Service - A Usability Checklist for Ecommerce Websites e-report.

The reason I don't advise web pages that link to themselves is that it's confusing to visitors who are used to clicking on a link and going somewhere new. Like the Swirl Dance, you get into a groove where you're constantly moving, and each click takes you further into the adventure. Navigation should always provide a way back "Home" and that way should be easy to find. Thank heavens the Swirl Dance had a leader to guide us as we nearly got all tangled up inside the circles within circles!

There's other good points in today's Alertbox checklist. But, of course, you get way more than 10 checkpoints with MY checklist!

Kim

[Ron Carnell]

I disagree with several of Nielsen's Ten Violations, but I disagree with this one the most vehemently. Following his dictum violates what I think is the MOST important rule for all site navigation -- Consistency.

If someone comes to my home page and points their mouse at the graphic logo, the last thing I want to do is tell them it's not a link. 'Cause, chances are they'll never check it again, and of course, it IS a link on every other page of the web site. Nor do I want to change menu or footer structure on just about every page of the site. Item #7 on a list of links should never get pushed to #8 or squeezed back to #6 because links have been removed, and a list of links should never contain something that is not a link. Where appropriate, and that usually only means a vertical list of text links, I include a "You are here" tag after the link because it doesn't substantially change the layout they are learning to trust. Even that isn't an option, though, with a vertical list (footer) or graphical list (menu). IMO, a consistent implementation is FAR more important to usability than a link that will return them to where they already are.

Quickly ... change your TV to channel 41. Did the 4 or 1 suddenly disappear from your remote control?

[cre8pc]

Ron,

What you suggest are good workarounds. When I test sites, in nearly every case, the homepage links to itself with a text or image link that says "Home". This is often in addition to the logo which is clickable. I never call attention in my reports to linked logos because so many people don't know to use them to get home and for those that do, they're a lifesaver when you get lost. For a homepage, a link "Home" is wasted real estate when the purpose of the homepage is to suck them in and interest them in clicking deeper into the site.

I don't push redesigns on my clients when I see this mistake though. Nobody wants to hear that. What they want are workarounds for what they already have. Like you say, in many designs, "Home" is the top link in most vertical nav schemes and locked into the overall template. Instead of removing the label of a page because you don't want it to link to itself (which kills the consistency aspect of navigation), I suggest using it as a pointer. As you say, the label can be a "You Are Here" indicator. I usually recommend the easy route of unlinking the label, boldfacing it (if it's text) and even enlarging the font face as part of the "You Are Here" trigger.

Some sites have 2, 3, 4, or more links that go nowhere but a refresh. JN is pretty cut throat at times, but he also sees the same things happening over and over again. So do I. I'm trying to help web designers focus on efficiency. Web site visitors have very little patience. Make each click count and don't waste their time going in circles.

Kim

[Adrian]

I can't say I think its a problem having a 'home' link on the home page, and, as Ron say, I think consistancy is a standard requirement.

I also don't think having just a linked logo is enough either though. Some sites link them, some don't, if I see a link that says 'home' I'm going to go for that rather than testing the logo to see if it links there too.

With a well structured site, I would think it should be fairly easy to tell which page your on anyway. If the title of the page is 'blue widgets' or is about blue widgets and I see a link for 'blue widgets', I'm thinking that the link is for the page I'm already on.

Regardless of whether you have redundant links on the page or not, I think its important for a visitor to know where they are anyway. I can't see that they are going to have an easy time getting round a site if they don't know where they are.

If you can disable and highlight in some way any links that link to the current page, I don't see a problem with that though. Its a bit of work to do though, unless you use some fairly crafty serverside stuff to work out which page your on and to find and disable any links to it (though in many cases, a comparision of the file name against parsed links would work I guess and be relatively easy to impliment).

I'd much rather have the consistancy in the nav bars first, then worry if people are going to be confused by a self linking link. Though I think if that were the case, I'd also want t be looking at the structure of my site to see why people think they would be going to a different page.

[peter_d]

MOST important rule for all site navigation -- Consistency.  

Agreed Ron. I also think "Don't include an active link to the homepage on the homepage" is wrong in some contexts. It implies that the user will only be given signals about where they are by examining the main navigation structure. There are often more effective ways to signpost this.

They are just guidelines, of course. Requires thought as to how they should be applied, or when they should be disregarded altogether.

[DianeV]

Well, I agree, too. I have found that uniform navigation is more conducive to ease of understanding than a constantly shifting menu.

While the menu is hopefully not the only indication of where the user is, looking at it from a "what's in front of your eyes" perspective, removing the link altogether simply means that the one link pertinent to the page the user is on is missing(!).

On the other hand, to insist that the "home page" link on the home page not be clickable -- and yet allow other page-specific links to be clickable -- is inconsistent and therefore a step away from what the user might find logical.

A brief look at both amazon.com and cnn.com reveal that *both* have a clickable link on the home page. Both highlight the button, to be sure, but they're both clickable.

I am sure that many of us have read all kinds studies and "musts"; my thought is that it's good to examine these to see where they may fall on a scale of true through false.

[peter_d]

What is the cost to the user of clicking a link leading to the exact same page the user is currently on? That they may have to then click another link instead? Big deal. At very least that action has instilled in them that the way to get back to the home page is to click that "home" button.

I doubt that any user would become so confused at having clicked on a link that says "home", only to find the exact same screen again, that they no longer know where they are, what they are doing or what their name is.

More importantly, how did that person manage to switch on the PC in the first place?

[bwelford]

Yes, I agree. I think Jakob was wrong on this one. I think he got caught by the Intelligence Trap. He can't see that there are other points of view, which have been well expressed here.

In addition, we can all make mistakes. :crazyeyes: Sometimes you forget where you are. So you click on Home. Oops. I'm there already. No harm done. No frustration. What's the big deal.

[cre8pc]

So what you all are saying is that it's perfectly alright to hit a link and not go anywhere - that a refresh action instead of a going to a new page is fine?

I understand where JN is coming from. He, and others in usability and human factors fields, watch how people use websites. They ask questions. They note what confuses or frustrate website visitors. A link that performs an unexpected funtion is frustrating. When added to a pile of other things that may be frustrating a visitor. it adds up. The risk is frustrating the user so much that they leave the site entirely. All he, or I, is saying is watch out for possible stumbling blocks to overall ease of use.

My background is in software engineering. A button or link has to perform an expected function or it's considered a defect. Consider too the learnability of an application or web site. At all times you want to support user confidence.

Unhooking and bold facing a link doesn't change the order of navigation. Peter brings up another less common usability oriented point that navigation alone should not be the sole indicator of where you are. Other elements are helpful, such as color changes to show a new section.

As a user, I don't enjoy links that behave as refresh buttons. I don't expect this function to occur when I click on it.

Kim

[Ron Carnell]

A button or link has to perform an expected function or it's considered a defect.

And that expected function, Kim, shouldn't change from page to page.

Just about everything we do, in software, rests on a teeter-totter, with the "cost" always sitting directly across from us. You want faster reads in your database? Fine, but it'll cost you considerably more disk space and a little more time on your writes. You want a program to carry a small RAM footprint? Okay, but it won't execute as quickly. You want to use image buttons to cue location by changing appearance? We can do that, but those new images won't be cached and will both increase your bandwidth and slow down the page load. Everything carries a cost. Some situations will warrant paying that cost, others won't.

In my opinion, the ideal solution is to point the same-page link at a JavaScript routine. Use it to reach across the wires and smack them up side the head with a pop-up window. "Hey, you're already there stupid!" I often do something similar with a Submit button (though my message is slightly more tactful), but I doubt I will ever do it with a same-page link. Even if pop-up blockers weren't removing that option, I feel the cost of adding the code to every page is too high to pay. I choose a faster download for everyone, rather than less confusion for a very few. If my logs were to indicate a whole lot of confused people reloading the same page, I might have to reconsider.

I still think the absolute worst thing you can throw into a user's face is a non-functional link. It worked before, but doesn't work now? If they already know where they are, they probably won't click it. If they don't know where they are, doing nothing when they click it isn't giving them a whole lot of feedback and it certainly doesn't diminish their confusion. It only compounds it. At least by reloading the page, you give them a base line from which to proceed. "I didn't know where I was, but now I know where I am." A non-functional link, in my opinion, essentially ignores their click request and leaves them feeling powerless. On the web or off, unless there is the danger of losing or corrupting data, a user should be allowed to do what they want. 'Cause the only thing worse than confusion is frustration.

[cre8pc]

A link is indicated by an underline or change in hover color or some sort of clue that it's a link. Removing the tell tale signs that it's a link tells me it's not a link, but is a "You Are Here" pointer. The label is the same, but the function signal has changed.

For text readers, how productive, I wonder, is it to send the user to a page they're already on? Blind users are going by feedback other than sight signals. If a website requirement says "Be accessible to special needs users", I would think about twice about making things more frustrating than they already put up with.

I don't mind obvious signals. For myself, putting the word "Home" on my homepage would seem to say "I know you're idiot and can't tell this is the homepage, so I'm going to label it "Home" and make that link refresh the screen so you can't go anywhere." Going nowhere, in my mind, is a different function than going somewhere new

Kim

[James]

An interesting onversation. Interestingly (as Steve Krug says), Amazon don't have a Home link. They have a 'Welcome' Tab. Interestingly I've never clicked it. However, that Welcome link is linked even on the homepage.

The cre8asite forum hasn't got a home link. However, it has a logo that links to the home page. Even from the home page.

Personally, I have no strong views either way. Sometimes, hiding the home link if in a left navigation means that menu options move between pages, which can be more confusing.

Regards,
James

[cre8pc]

More on links -

Excerpt from Web Site Usability: A Designer's Guide

Links on the World Wide Web
http://www.uie.com/bookexpt.htm

I decided to look at some of my past and recent client sites to see which ones had a navigation link on the homepage that said "Home". Results are all over the place.

Yes, the home link appears in navigation and links to itself:
Autobytel
Raytheon
Tyco Electronics

Alternative:
Geico uses Amazon's technique of "Welcome" instead

No, there is no Home link on the home page:
Sempco
Empirix
All About Vision
ThincInteractive - a flash site. Home linking to home would mess up the flow

Home link in the universal footer, so it appears on the homepage: (To which Nielsen says "Fine":

Healthbridge

Home that doesn't go home, but goes to other pages instead:

http://www.spraylat.com/home.asp - A case of a misleading label.

Then I checked some big name sites:

Dell - no home link home
IBM - yes, home links home
Google - no
BBC - no
CBS news - yes

and usability company sites for homepage "Home" links:

www.usabilityfirst.com/index.txl - home is unlinked
www.webword.com/ - home is unlinked
www.stickyminds.com/index.asp - home is linked
www.useit.com/ - no home indicator on the homepage
www.universalusability.org/index.html - home is linked home
www.webstyleguide.com/index.html - home is in the footer, and linked
www.digital-web.com/ - home is unlinked
www.boxesandarrows.com/ - no home option, it's a blog so the requirement is different
www.humanfactors.com/home/default.asp - home is linked, in the footer

Results are all over the place but usability sites seem to be thinking twice about where to put it, if at all. Of all the results, the one that least annoys me is the footer home link. This is because visitors are more often relying on primary navigation up top or vertical nav on the sides, where most of the page identifiers are located. For long long home pages, with gobs of content or things to look at, the visitor may just forget, when they reach the bottom of the page, where they are. That "Home" link in the footer servers a considerate purpose then.

Obviously, home links that link home don't bother that many people or web designers.

Now we know.

Kim

[peter_d]

A button or link has to perform an expected function or it's considered a defect.

By changing the function of a link (on one page it's a navigation link, on the next it's a "you are here" pointer), you're also changing the expected function. At very least, you're introducing ambiguity.

Using the navigation structure as the "you are here" indicator works well, particularly on sites designed around the navigation scheme. On sites where the navigation structure is not writ large, I think it is less effective as a position indicator and some other element is better suited to this purpose.

This is the problem I have with statistical models of user behaviour. The figures cannot accomodate every design context. While it may be true that 57.9% of test users became confused on the test sites they were shown when the home link wasn't greyed out, they may not be at all confused on MY site when I do the same thing. Perhaps my users are more web savvy. Perhaps my design is less reliant on the user knowing their position in the navigation structure. Perhaps my stats show that 90% of visitors never want to see anything but the home page etc etc

That is why JN offers guidelines, not rules.

[bragadocchio]

I'm a little surprised by this outcry in favor of pages linking to themselves.

Then again, I don't like logos as links.

That is why JN offers guidelines, not rules.

Or at the very least, what JN offers should be considered guidelines and not rules.

[DianeV]

I see what you mean, Bill. On the other hand, we usually provide both a linked logo *and* a home page link.

[peter_d]

I like logos as home links and get annoyed when they aren't

Just goes to show, different people have different expectations. The usability "rules" obviously aren't universal.

[cre8pc]

Jeez Bill, I thought you'd never get here!

:multi:

Kim

[bragadocchio]

It seems a little uneven here, Kim.

Some interesting points, and a number of statements in different posts that conflict with each other.

A short list of some ideas here:

1. logos should be links
2. logos are usually joined by textual links home.
3. When people expect something to be a link it should be.
4. Pages shouldn't link to themselves.
5. Links on one page can be "you are here" indicators on another.
6. Navigation should remain consistent on every page.
7. The link shouldn't be the only indicator of which page you're upon.
8. Consistency is a standard requirement.

I'm not convinced that navigation has to remain consistent on each page. I'll opt for intelligent, informative, and useful before consistent. If the link appears altered in the navigation bar as one way to tell me where I'm at, I don't see a harm in it. I definitely don't see that alteration in the navigation panel being the cause of confusion.

[peter_d]

I think people are saying "it depends".

Ron brought up some good points earlier, namely that consistency in linking can be just as beneficial as linking that changes function.

Also, there's the cost factor to consider. It can create a lot of overhead changing the links depending on context. Will this extra cost be worth it?
The fact that 2% of visitors may become so confused they leave is a risk I'll take if the re-engineering changes I need to implement cost me more that those visitors are worth. This brings up a problem with usability services in general. They are often long on opinion and short on cost-benefit analysis. Show me how these changes will translate to the bottom line.

I run some pretty successful e-commerce sites and I've found many usability and design facts to be myths. The reality is that link redundancy works. Ugly design sells. Repitition is a must. The list goes on....