July 07, 2004 | View Comments (45) | Category: Information Architecture
Summary: Why all sites need a home link in the navigation.
The Information Architecture of a site is something that gets overlooked by designers for various reasons. One of the lastest IA mistakes that I am beginning to see popup is the lack of a “home” link in the navigation. Many times the logo takes the place of a Home tab, but I don't think it should be used as a substitute.
One of the problems that we designers have is that we assume that users understand that web like we do. However, I have found myself many times looking for the “home” link only to remind myself a couple seconds later that I should try to click on the logo. I can only imagine the trouble that non-expert users would have.
Maybe it could be viewed as a fashion trend in the design world, but again there is no substitute for a quality IA structure. Maybe the home link messes up your fixed width tabbed structure. I suggest you rethink it then. What if a user comes from google to a subpage? How will they know how to get to the homepage? What about the thousands of new users who are going online for the first time ever?
I have been trying to think of times when it would be okay not to include a home link on your site, but I failed to come up with anything. Maybe I could get away without putting a home link since the footer sends you to everywhere you would want to go, but I would not want to risk alienating the users who are used to using the tabs.
I love to see designers push the envelope when it comes to web design, but not at the expense of certain core values that must be adhered to. Sure it may seem redundant to you to include two home links (the tab and the logo), but not all images on your site are links, so why should your users expect the logo to be one as well?
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/276
Dammit I knew I would get called out on something :-) The funny thing is I did have a home link, but it was the only link in the nav and that looked funny so I just took it away since the majority of the people who go to the site come from Google looking for a specific book and there is really no reason at all to visit the homepage.
After weeks of careful analysis done by a large group of experts I had decided that this was the one exception to not have a home link ;-)
Well, geez now this whole post is lost, haha.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Well, the "careful analysis done by a large group..." thing?
That saved the post. 'Cause I, like... totally believe you dude.
Damn, I have to stop posting while drunk. This goes nowhere.
sergio (http://overcaffeinated.net)
This site doesn't have a home link either: http://9rules.com/jewelry/categories/3885201/index.php
A fashion trend, huh? ;-P
david (http://freepgs.com/individed/)
This is something I've been noticing lately as well. Designing for search (people who come in via Google) is hugely important, especially on large informational sites. An explicit "home" link is as close to a must have as you can get.
Oh and you don't have a "home" link on Business Logs either... ;)
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)
Actually the "home" link just isn't called the "home" link on the b-logs domain. Dammit, I shall change the title of this thread to the foot-in-the-mouth thread.
In any case designing for people coming from Google is a facet of design that gets overlooked.
(Ignore my amazon sites people!...haha)
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Well Scrivs, you did make a good point. However, as you inadvertently proved, every blanket statement has exceptions, you might call them holes in the sheets.
I can honestly look at the Roe and say there is no need for a "home" link. Perhaps a "Recommendations" link, since that is the function of what would be the "home" page.
Thinking of the concept of the home page, it simply doesn't make sense on some sites. If I remember right, the home page was originally conceived as a page that pointed to every other page on the site (or "stack", for those who remember HyperCard ;)). Most "home" pages don't function like that anymore. On most blogs and news-oriented sites, they present the latest content. On store sites such as the Roe, they're used to highlight selected content, making suggestions on what the user might be looking for.
Someone pointed out a while back (I don't remember who or where) that the user doesn't actually care *where* they are in a website, but simply that they're getting closer to what they want. This is a subtle thing that we tend to forget with our newfangled "global navigation schemes".
Every rule has exceptions. Some sites don't need "home". Some sites don't even need "global navigation". All sites should be designed individually with its own goals in mind, with past wisdom taken to heart, and applied when needed.
Chris Vincent (http://dris.dyndns.org:8080/)
This brings me to a theory I just made up as reading this. I never thought of the way we label things within sites, we have the home link which is to take you to the root directory and the default document.
But what about when we design for the everyday computer user; our moms, dads, brothers, and sisters. You know...the morons. Has it ever occured to you that what we consider home, they may preceive as a start page?
Companies and sites on the net pound that conception into their mind, "Set SOMESITE as your Hompeage." I just started reading this, and that popped into my mind. And it led me to wonder if this defers visitors (the dolts) from clicking links that say "Home" or "Hompage" for fear that they are going to go to MSN or something.
Just a thought.
Ryan Latham (http://www.worldoneweb.com)
Yea, the Roe and that Jewelry store (what the hell are you doing with a Jewelry store Scrivs?) don't exactly need a home link, they just need another category.
I'm actually glad you brought this one up Scrivs. Normally I will always link the logo and include a home link as well, but recently I have come across a couple projects where I thought about leaving out the home link.
I like to keep my main nav links at no more than 7 or so. When working with a big site, this can sometimes be difficult. Let's look at SuicideGirls.com as an example. SG is a fairly good sized site with many different sections. They have 13 main nav links including a login. With a little rearanging of the logo, they might be able to squeeze in a home link. But is it necessary? How much different would the design look, and how much benefit would a home link provide?
There is absolutely no reason not to include a home link when the main nav is kept to a few number of links. But when the nav gets crowded, the home link tends to be the first one to get the boot.
If it was a rule to link the logo to the home page and everyone knew about the rule, we wouldn't have a problem. Most internet users are aware that the logo will usually link to the home page. It's the first place I click to get to the home page of any site. And it really pisses me off when someone doesn't link their logo. But with usablity an increasing priority, just a logo with a link won't cut it.
So what should we do when our nav gets too crowded and we can't find a way to narrow the number of links down any further? Bowman has 11 links within the header of Stop Design. Hmmmm.... maybe two sets could provide a better solution. I wonder if Bowman thought about giving the home link the boot before he decided on two sets.
Jason Marble
Now that is amusing, I didn't even notice the jewelry store :P Rumbled :P
Every site I develop will usually have the "home" link on it and I try not to be cute with names in the navigation - unless it's really necessary. Everyone wants to go home right?If you're lost, that's the one place you want to be heading. The web is no exception :P
However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. Take for instance Adactio:
When you come to the first page, it's a small box with a welcome message and a selection of links.
Once you click on "journal", there really is no need to go back "home" - so Jeremy doesn't include it in his links because the ones presented are sufficient.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
I always just assumed this was an obvious IA component to web design. However, I digress, I did at one point neglect to include a home link. That is until someone pointed it out and I gladly added it (took all of two seconds).
kartooner (http://www.kartooner.com)
Ironically, this might be a result of usability aspirations. I believe I remember Jakob Nielsen having a recommendation somewhere against having a "home" link on the home page. Most blog-type sites (if not more) use template-driven design, so if a link's not on one page, it's not on any page. As many more sites are paying attention to usability than in the past, the very usable Home link might be coming off, in an attempt to be more usable. Heh.
JB (http://broome.us)
Why?
I've always seen the homepage of a site to serve as the executive summary of the whole deal. If the content is written well enough for a subpage to stand alone and the site navigation is intuitive, then it shouldn't be necessary for a visitor to find the homepage - right?
For example, look at Amazon - do they really evenneed a homepage?
Or consider everyones favorite 37sig - most any one of their subpages could easily serve as a homepage without diluting their purpose or mission.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Found that link from Neilson...
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20031110.html
#10.
JB (http://broome.us)
The home link always bugs me for a couple of reasons. First of all when I've spent a couple weeks or so carefully massaging and organizing content, making sure that the categories and pages are well named and easy to understand... the last thing I want to do is throw in a home tab... because "home" means nothing in relationship to the rest of my content. "home" gives no indication of what content is available on that page.
Second, in a tree structured site, It seems that home shouldn't be in the main navigation because it's the top branch of the tree, so to speak. I like the idea of moving home to a location of less importance with privacy policy, help and the like. Still there if you need it but not mucking about with the ever so important primary nav.
But if I can't do that, i'm pressed for space and the client doesn't mind I will usually kick the home link to the curb.
Sparkalyn (http://sparklit.sparkalyn.com)
I think a home link is almost always necessary, unless your site doesn't provide a "top-level" of some sort. I recently worked on a site designed for late high school/early college students and their teachers/advisors. I watched in amazement in our first round of user testing when almost all of them searched in vain for a way to go home when the whole branding banner across the top of the site was a home link!
When we added the word "home" into the banner in the lower right corner, almost all users clicked right on the word, still unaware that the whole banner was a link.
And these are regular internet users, not my great-grandma...
Chris L (http://www.chrislott.org/)
Yes, I've noticed that trend, too.
Though, I don't mind is as much, because I've noticed in a lot of sites that their LOGO becomes a "home" link. Notice that too? I haven't really stopped to think about it, but whenever I just want to return to the home page, as a web savvy person I do one of three things:
1) click "home" if it's there
2) if not there, click on the logo to go home
3) If all else fails, manually type out the address on the address bar
Lea (http://xox.lealea.net/01/)
"What if a user comes from google to a subpage? How will they know how to get to the homepage? "
While I agree that there should be a link to the page you designate as Home page, but for heavens sake, don't send your visitors home!
I understand why a user would want to go to Archives, Juwelry, News, etc. But why would a visitor want to go Home? Why not tell them what they can expect on that page?
As you rightly point out, visitors might come in through any page, so there isn't really a "first" or "home" page. Visitors, wherever they are on a site, should be given navigational choices, and the content under the menu should live up to their expectations. Going home just doesn't ...
ben (http://aracane.ch)
Specifically, in regards to 9rules.com and the sites attached, shouldn't the "home" links go back to 9rules.com instead of the beginning page of the subfolder?
Out of curiousity, how are you going to deal with that IA issue once you launch the 9rules homepage?
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Well the issue with the 9rules.com page at the moment is that I literally have 6 different ideas for it, so it really depends on how bad I want people to go back to the site. That will dicatate how I handle the navigation part.
Since each major site in the network has the border spanning the top I could always put a network-wide navigation scheme up there ala OSDN.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
It sounds [reads] as if you're contradicting yourself a bit.
In the post, you refer to it as a designers "mistake" to not have a clear "home" link to take a user to the top page of a site - and the designer should "rethink" their choice.
Yet in your last comment you state that you (as the designer / owner) will "make the decision" on whether you want the user to easily get back to the root page.
??
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Ah, but you are taking the "root" or "home" page as the 9rules.com site, while I was looking at the "root" as the homepage of the subdomain. I think that is where we differ on definitions.
So yes as a designer it should be the content/user that dictates the IA for that current site, but possibly a network of sites has a different set of rules. Before the 9rules site was not important so I didn't really care if people went it or not, but when the redesign is complete and I decide the importance of it, then I also have to decide if content wise it becomes the "root" or not.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Ok, 9rules is a network with a currently a couple of highly visited subfolders (V2 and the roe).
Under that scenario, wouldn't GE.com also be a network of sites with, also, highly visited subfolders.
Those subfolders are all listed on the root page (GE.com) like the subfolders are listed on 9rules.com.
A visitor can visit and click all around the aerospace page and / or the medical technology page, and until they are popped out to a completely new domain, the home page goes back to the root - not the start page of the subfolder.
So, I don't understand your argument of how a "home" link should go to the beginning of a subfolder start page.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Perhaps http://9rules.com/store/categories/3652/index.php and pages that don't require the tabbed interface would benefit from breadcrumbs, the first one being home.
I know, I've used the home » category » article:title approach, to include a home, when I've wanted it gone from the primary navigation. Unfortunately though, I think most novice users totally overlook breadcrumbs. At least that's been my experience based on Usability focus groups.
allgood2 (http://www.wide-eyed.org)
So is the only issue the use of the word "home"?
Slashdot is part of a network of sites where by your definition the "home" link is at the top bar pointing back to the OSDN site. However, in the main navigation they have a "main" link which I would consider the "home" link. I think we are getting caught up in semantics here.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
If we didn't use home, then the title for the "home" navigation would be rather long - unless you generalised and said "Updates", which still isn't descriptive enough. Home has worked for years, it's familiar and thus people expect to see it when they visit a web site. However, they don't expect to see "latest news on the monkey farm/monkey dancing/updates on my toe infection".
It's amazing how people throw familiarity out the window. Hey, i'm all for news things - but not when it comes to "what a person is used to".
As for Scrivs' site - Treat each page within his portal as an individual web site. If you do that, rather than being pedantic and treating everything like a sub-folder, it makes sense. When a user clicks "home" on the whitespace site, just so they can see the articles with the "most recent comments", they don't expect to be pulled back to the portal and have to click another link just to get back to the information they wanted in the first place.
You may as well just throw your nav titles out the window and have a long bar with the following links on it "root / root - sub-level 1 / root - sub-level 2 / . "
or
"Home, but not quite home as this is sub-folder x of the root".
See how many people come back to your web site then.
However, as I mentioned above (in my other post) in certain circumstances you really don't need the home link.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
Every site I have ever designed has a home link. Its friggin common sense. I hate going to sites without a home link, I feel like the layout/design isn't complete.
Bryan (http://www.juicedthoughts.com)
What are your thoughts on just having the home page in the breadcrumbs?
I tackled this issue on a number of occassions and decided that breadcrumbs was a good way to go...I used them for Matt Nichol which was launched today.
That seemed to be the simplest way to handle that HOME thingy.
Francis Fernandes (http://www.exclaimsolutions.com)
Francis: Yeah, that was a subtle way of doing it. However, I was looking for the breadcumbs, so it was easy for me to notice. I'm not sure if the average user would see it or know to click it. Nice work btw.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
There was a time in one of the redesign iterations of the 9r network that ForeverGeek and Whitespace were very similiar in appearance.
Paul, if I remember correctly, had a link to FG in the post on WS. I clicked out to it, looked it over, saw a similiar looking navigation bar on FG to that which was on WS and instinctively hit the "home" on FG, expecting to go "home" to WS.
Even after having being a long time contributor here, and familiar with the redesign story and process, I was still dumbfounded after a few clicks as to why I wasn't going back to Whitespace after hitting the "home" button on ForeverGeek.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
The point is that those who go on forever geek as newbies (first timers) won't technically get the connection or care about whitespace (no offence Paul). If they pressed the home button each time and got brought back here (or the root), they'd be a bit pissed off.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
Robert -
I understand your point. But, just for the sake of argument, why then go through the effort of setting up a "network"? Isn't the point to get people to visit the other online offerings as well?
Why not just setup a new domain for each?
Isn't it fair to assume in general IA terms that for the average web user (grandma or guru) expects that if they are observant enough to see they are visiting http://www.somewebsite/somesubfolder/interestingstories/somestory.php, that hitting a home link would take them to the root http://www.somewebsite.com?
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
But forever geek's address is: http://forevergeek.com. The roe and version two are the only ones with "http://www.9rules.com/" suffixed to the start of their address.
Also, when you go on forever geek the links to the other parts of the portal are in small print - which means that people can ignore them if they want.
I would assume Paul's portal acts like: If you want to visit the other parts you can, but these individual web sites can hold their own.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
So yes, he has set up a new domain for quite a few of the web sites, even though they are on the same "network".
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
Robert -
Yes, I'm aware forevergeek is it's own domain. Personally, I think V2 and Whitespace should be as well.
My point was to illustrate how confused a situation can get - even for a long time visitor.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
heh, I would like separate domains for each one as well. I definitely didn't envision this explosion of sites when I first bought the 9rules domain :-)
I think the top border will be used as the network navigation as that seems most logical to me.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
Scrivs, I use a default grey background in my browser (easier on the eyes) and 9rules.com looks pretty naff on it.
I think every site should always have a Home link. I also think every site should have constant navigation on all pages (except perhaps some in the deepest bowels). Then there is never any confusion.
Every home page I visit is different so people are never going to know what they are going to see on a home page, but I bet they are all curious and will click the Home link to find out. So the home page can be whatever you want it to be, but it would be wasted if it did not make the visitor understand what they can find on the site or how to get there.
I can't really imagine starting out from scratch and designing a web site without a home page and a clear home link on all pages. Wrt your websites Scrivs, I'd make a home page for all your websites with info or taster or goodie about each site on the home page. Whenever you come up with another idea for a website, just add it on. In other words decide on your network name and keep one home page for all your sites. You could then have Home and WS home, Home and V2 home etc on your pages. You're not overcrowded with links so it wouldn't spoil the design. I like breadcrumbs too but always right at the top of the page so I always know where to look for them.
Peter (http://www.01010.org/)
Yeah and my point is that regular visitors are more likely to get confused than new ones lol. Which is what your point backa up.
You see the home link like it should be a convenience for regular visitors who go on all the web sites, but I see it like it should just simply go back to the start of each individual web site for those that aren't interested in or don't go to the other sections.
I can't tell you defend Paul for his choice of "home" linking back to the same web site (only the main page), I can only state how logic it is for it to be like that.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
Yes, Robert I agree we're coming to the same point from opposite views, but what I'm trying to discuss here is in a bigger context - forget 9r and its subs for the time being.
In the wider context of IA "rules" and information flow diagrams, I would think that an unspoken rule would be "home" points to the root of the domain, not to the index page of a subfolder.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
I agree with you Mark, that in most cases that "home" button should point to the root. However, there are exceptions and portals are that exception imo.
Besides, every rule has it's exception - portals in this case are that exception.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
I agree with post #14 (Mark)
I design a website almost in lieu of "home." I keep "home" in mind, but in the very back of it.
As the website nears completion, I bring the idea of "home" to the forefront, and use it as a window to the rest of the site. "Home's" purpose, to me, is to disseminate as much information as is needed to convey your primary and secondary purposes/features to your primary and secondary audiences.
"Home" is an outlet through which to advertise the bulk of my website.
Rabbit (http://www.rabbitcreative.com/)
How does everyone feel about "Home" showing up in a breadcrumb on sub-pages rather than as a primary navigation choice? We just completed this site, and it works this way. (www.arobotics.com).
So far this seems to make sense to both people visiting through the home page, or coming in using Google to any part in the site.
Ketan (http://www.ketanvakil.com/)
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
It's hard to believe you're so successful, seeing that you don't practice what you preach.
http://9rules.com/store/categories/3652/index.php
:-p
Thomas