Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

For a more dynamic and strong site, use the opposite color of your website background for your navbar background. If you want to have a more calm, minimal and subdued feel to your site (and navbar), you should use the same color for your navbar and background. I would recommend having a white background for the navbar though, potentially, if your ...


2

I believe the simplest answer to the primary question is based on the following logic: If it didn't link to the home page, then where else? If it didn't link anywhere, wouldn't that be a waste? It's desirable to hyperlink anything that can logically and unambiguously be linked in the context. Therefore I would say it is no accident of ...


1

The existing answers claim that it is done merely because it has become a self fulfilling standard. That may be partially true but neither are UX answers and they miss out why it is intuitive. A user often clicked on a site logo to get to your site, so it is consistent and makes perfect sense for any click on the same logo to take you back to that same ...


0

There's one strong advantage to the white navbar over any kind of color: it can be easily customized with any logo if/when the system is whitelabeled or rebranded. However, if white-labeling isn't anywhere in your perspective, a colored bar can be great for building some extra personality with a bold color block.


0

Your question contains answer in itself because of word 'Navigation' Navigation When a user views a website and wants to go to the home page there will have to be a link to the home page. If the website LOGO is not linking to the home page then the user will have to select a "home" link on the Navigation bar. Users familiar with Big Brand sites are ...


46

Where was this first seen This practice dates back at least to the earliest days of image hyperlinks. For example, the Internet Archive's earliest snapshot of Yahoo's home page from October 1996 has a clickable Yahoo! logo. Why has it become an industry standard? 1. Convention Conventions are self-perpetuating. Given the ubiquity of this practice, ...


48

It's become standard because everyone does it. Everyone does it because it's nice to have a 'home' link but it's not something that needs to clutter the menu, either. Hence the idea to just make the logo link to the home page. Not sure if anyone can answer where this was first seen. But I recall doing it close to 2 decades ago so I think its been around ...


0

Well, first of all, you have to define whether you need this for desktop, mobile (app) or desktop and mobile combined (responsive). This is paramount to your question, because you have some specific needs that require different approaches depending on context. If you're going for desktop, I think something like "mega menu dropdown" is the more tempting ...


3

It seems like yours is a moderately to deep hierarchy problem. In this case, you can take hint from Khan Academy. They too have Subjects > Categories > Sub-categories > More sub categories Each subcategory usually has a longer description. Clicking on subjects reveals a list of subjects, which in turn shows a list of sub-categories on hover. ...


0

I would argue that breadcrumbs used on a mobile site could in fact provide better usability, and share a multi-purpose. One of the things mostly seen today with responsive (mobile) sites is collapsing navigation that turns into a drawer/hamburger icon up top, once that navigation is hidden the only way to give a visual aid to the user of what page they are ...


7

It sounds like your real problem isn’t designing how to show a link is non-reversible. Your real problem is your app has committed the cardinal sin of breaking the Back button, which is an issue going beyond how you mark links in each list item. Solving the Real Problem Solutions, from most to least preferred: Fix the Back button. Okay, you say that the ...


1

The short answer is it depends. On a basic website with a handful of pages, breadcrumbs are certainly unnecessary. But on larger sites (especially reference and documentation sites), breadcrumbs are extremely useful for navigation and orientation—one might even say they're downright necessary. The hard part is determining whether your site is large enough to ...


0

Here are a few reasons why people prefer top navigation. Users consume website content in F pattern http://www.nngroup.com/articles/f-shaped-pattern-reading-web-content/ This suggests both the left and top real estate grab equal attention. So, top navigation is another choice that can be used unless the number of menu items are not too many. Content ...


1

Many modern website designs that eschew vertical left navigation menus use one or more of the following instead: Hidden hamburger menus Simple horizontal navigation at the top of the page Long single-column content Targeted call-to-action buttons Those design decisions help maintain focus on the content and allow each page to deliver information with a ...


1

The criteria varies and the usual answer is "it depends". I go by this principle, If the user has to scroll or do complex interactions to get to UI:A on PAGE:A just to interact and navigate to PAGE:B then make UI:A sticky. Its made up, and origin is common sense. But then, sites like medium.com have a variation of this sticky top bar. When a user ...


2

The sticky header should contain tools or information that are so important for the website that you need to access them from everywhere at any given time. This could be the search and their settings on Google, your money amount on an online banking website or current running popular livestreams on Twitch while searching for something to watch. Facebook ...


1

I have seen horizontal navs with a great many options in them and they can be made to work fairly effectively The example I have here is from "maplin.co.uk" - an electronics store that has many "departments" each with it's own set of 'sub departments':


1

Tabs may take up more real estate, but many apps have been using a pattern that while scrolling down the page, the tabs (or any subheader/button-bar) will slide up behind the main header. A simple scroll towards the top of the page will reveal the tabs. This still allows the user to know where they are within the app, but will give a thumb's worth more of ...


0

The simplest (and probably most effective) way to solve this is to add a "products" page. Many sites that use the same navigation model you're describing also repeat the sub-menu content on the section home page. I.e. your products page becomes the home page for the products section and shows the contents of the products sub-menu with illustrative images and ...


0

If you have used Amazon or Flipkart websites to shop and used their main search field - you might have noticed their auto-filled dropdown menu - That technique is quite suitable in your situation as the majority of users know exactly what the gray colored text says. You can change the placement of gray colored text to top and keep Accounts below it. But it ...


1

As you've discovered, the iOS Human Interface Guidelines document (or HIG) makes no mention of an accordion, however they do refer to the UITableView. This StackOverflow question gets the credit for that. There are also other accordion solutions, such as this one on YouTube. But I think your question isn't "How do I do this" but "Is it OK to do this?" That ...


0

"A" (the drag and drop option) is probably the natural choice on a tablet with touch interface. Unless that arrangement is impractical for screen space reasons, it will probably be more pleasing for the users. (who are, presumably, using a tablet at least in part for that kind of experience)


2

Accessible checkboxes usually require two operations to control: first the user needs to 'focus' the checkbox (usually by using the 'tab' key to move through the interface until they reach the right control) and then they need to change the state of the checkbox (usually using the 'space' key). Sighted users will skip through the page using visual cues such ...


-1

Folders are Dead, long live Folders. Folders died on Windows computers in 2004 with Google Desktop, on Mac in 2005 with Smart Folders, and in mail in 2004 with Gmail. However, all of these look to the user much like folders. Social media is another example of the use of labels instead of folders. Just because you've put your post in the #yolo folder, it ...


0

Databases have better performance and they can be indexed by many criterias. Filesystems usually waste a lot of space and are slow and the indexing is delegated to the user... so the users tend to search the filesystem, which is slow, resource consuming, frozes the machine, etc.


2

The answer to this question is simple, and is the answer for pretty much any "why don't we do it this way" question: You should do what makes sense for your users to digest your content in the most effective way. This may mean a left-hand nav for your app, but a one-size-fits-all model will not be effective for all users across all applications. Your best ...


0

This flow can go into three screens: group list, group view with group metadata and a sub-groups list, sub-group view with metadata and a feed of content. A material design plus icon can store all additional functionality like editing, exporting etc, or if there's only editing, use the edit icon in the same place for editing the group description, image, ...


0

It's hard to say if the folder structure will ever truly die, but we can safely say it's been evolving for a number of years. As far back as 2007 in Windows Vista, the user saw their folder structure separated by carets:       Clicking to the right of this area revealed the actual folder structure in its proper back-slash format:   ...


0

It depends on the kind of information you want to display in the app. The Human Interface Guideline for Apple Watch clearly states: Page-based navigation is best suited for a flat collection of information in which all items are peers. Example - Weather for different but limited number of locations. Hierarchical navigation is best suited for ...


0

Remember that consistency across platforms is an internal company benefit--not an end-user benefit, as few end users walk around using both iOS and Android (and those that do are obviously already well versed in both so it's not a big deal to be consistent). You may have a very good internal business reason to keep the consistent, though (ease of ...


0

Search and grouping by automatically extracted aspects are powerful tools but they don't solve the same problems as a folder structure may do: Search is good for finding a file when you know what you are looking for; and you can find similar candidates in the results, which is sometimes helpful, too. Automatic grouping (by location, by time, etc.) is ...


3

Tree view is often complicated and counter-intuitive to the users, but it has several strong advantages: full names which are unique identifiers I mean, if I access a file named /etc/passwd I know I access a particular file. There is no way I get /home/backup/passwd instead. Tags don't give you this garantee: if you have found exactly one object tagged ...


1

In the past many users were often confronted with an implementation model. The digital structure of operating systems - based on files and folders - was directly passed through to the UI. People were and still are willing to „container“ the information they find or create in to this structure. But only to a certain extent. Since we are human beings whos ...


1

They aren't dying, just finally revealing their limitations. In the age of limited processing power and os capabilities, folders were the easiest way to structure data. But not the best, as there's just one dimension to it - that is space. Tagging and taxonomies (word searching being just another one of those) came and added any number of dimensions, to ...


5

Folder structure is not dying However, its importance and prevalence in the average user's interface is. The truth is that a user will find the path of least resistance to accomplish their desired task. With this in mind, maintaining folder structure would have to become their desired task. For the average Joe, nope! The average person has become ...


11

Most people tend to think that certain aspects of technology die away, but I always get the feeling that it is far more common for it to "sediment". Whenever I see a new trend, it usually never ends like "this is the new best way". Normally it is more like "we solved this problem with one global solution, but now it seems there are different solutions for ...


104

Rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated ✞... Classic hierarchical folder views aren't dying. But they are being complemented by other ways of viewing and interacting with files. The key trend here is the decoupling of views from the underlying file system. The old world...One truth ⇨ One view Historically, file UX was heavily tied to the ...


3

Maybe more true thing to say would be that concept of folder structure as file organizing strategy is dying. Or maybe more true: organizing files/documents is becoming more and more automated. If we have concept of categories and one file can be in two categories then I would really dislike doing manual organization. Therefore all these new technologies use ...


7

Search helps if you know what you are looking for (obvious). If you don't know what you are looking for, a folder structure can help you find it. For example, if you are looking for a recipe for chicken Florentine, search will help you find it, or if you have chicken and want a recipe that uses it, search may help there too. But if you just want to cook ...


5

As tools (software and hardware) increase in speed, the value of search begins to eclipse the value of a folder structure as a way to find a file. On my PC, my MacBook, and my phone, it's simply faster to search for items by terminology rather than seek it out visually. Most file systems still need a folder structure, so it's not dying, it's just that ...


46

It's not dying completely, but it is becoming a power user niche feature. Everyone has seen or heard stories about the user who stores everything on their desktop or in a single My Documents folder. Humans are terrible at justifying a large upfront cost like creating and managing dozens of folders just for a possible, small benefit in the future like being ...


10

Probably. But it's a slow painful death. It essentially boils down to the need to put something somewhere where we can find it again, or where we can direct someone else to finding it. We are naturally predisposed to putting things in containers or compartmentalizing in such a way that even if it's a long time before we come back then we can still have a ...


14

Categorization of content is still very important, even after the rise of smartphones. Whether that's by date, by location, or by tags. The more and more popular use of smartphones since 2007 has forced designers to come up with simpler user experiences. Manually putting stuff in folders can usually be considered a bad ux experience, which is why in a lot ...


1

I did a small User Testing with your icons. Chose 5 tech-savvy almost college aged kids who stay nearby and showed them the icons with the labels hidden. This is what they had to say This is the distribution for each icon Music-3 Songs-2 Movies-1 Videos-4 Search-all 5 More-all 5 But, the TV icon was ambiguous TV-3? Screen-1? Track pad-1? ...


0

I think this discussion is very interesting. On the ux podcast by Per Axbom and James Royal-Lawson I heard they talk about the "hamburger menus" used on mobile devices and how often this icon is pressed depending on if the button had the label "menu" next to it or not. I googled it and came across this related article. http://exisweb.net/menu-eats-hamburger ...



Top 50 recent answers are included