I've seen a lot of sites hiding their nav on desktop and simply showing a hamburger-esque menu. Obviously this looks more "minimal" But I can't help to think this isn't the best approach from a UX perspective. Does anybody have any opinions, data, or studies to prove either way?


2 Answers 2


That's a clear "NO", as it lowers the discoverability of the system you're trying to make. Design-wise it may look sexy to really minimize it untill nothing's left, but to me it just adds to the confusion. It also seems pointless to add another step which just "gets in the way of doing my job".

But hey, don't take my word for it:

http://www.nngroup.com/articles/killing-global-navigation-one-trend-avoid/ https://lmjabreu.com/post/why-and-how-to-avoid-hamburger-menus/

  • That nngroup article sums it up. While I don't think the negative impact is as much as it used to be (since more users are familiar with the trend from mobile), there are still very few cases where it is a good idea. Aug 12, 2015 at 14:36
  • 1
    +1. More: deep.design/the-hamburger-menu
    – obelia
    Aug 12, 2015 at 14:38
  • that's a great article and also gives some good uses of it like facebook using it as a "more" options. @PhillipQuintero, I agree, the negative impact is smaller because people learned to use it and it's becoming a convention nowadays
    – Xabre
    Aug 12, 2015 at 14:43
  • 1
    I absolutely hate hamburger menus because it's been proven to not work. Discoverability is killed because of that dreaded three lined icon.
    – UXerUIer
    Aug 12, 2015 at 15:22
  • Yet it's something that's becoming increasingly common. So I think this may be a situation where implementation will eventually trump the concerns. The big one right now is discoverability but more and more people know what a hamburger menu is. I think over time, the discoverability issues of a hamburger menu becomes less and less of a concern.
    – DA01
    Aug 12, 2015 at 19:06

This is a bad idea.

Xabre is right that this makes interfaces more confusing for new users.

However, it also harms usability for experienced users. A menu item that is visible can be reached in a single action. When a menu item is hidden, I have to:

  1. Stop and think where the item is hidden.
  2. Click on the menu to open it.
  3. Once the menu is open, find the item and click on it (this part is no longer automatic, since the user isn't used to seeing the menu).

These steps may seem trivial, but they can significantly interrupt workflow.

GMail used to have top-level actions for things like making text bold. Now they are hidden in a format menu as part of GMail's "elegant" design. Despite sending thousands of emails since the change, I have never adjusted to the new workflow. It is an annoying interruption to have to open an extra menu, and I find myself searching for things (like the link button, which I often look for in the formatting menu, only to remember that it is on the top level after all).

Hiding actions unnecessarily is bad design, and it remains problematic even if users know the paradigm. You should aim for an interface that allows users to do what they want with the minimum effort and cognitive load.

  • If your workflow is dependent on a menu, there may be other issues at play. It's certainly a concern, but there's also research that shows that the 'number of clicks' isn't really a primary concern in and of itself.
    – DA01
    Aug 12, 2015 at 19:08

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.