ModsAzine.com "The Un Magazine"

3 Common IA Mistakes (that Are All Due to Low Information Scent)


Jakob Nielsen once said that “life is too short to click on things you don’t understand.” This quote sums up how users tend to behave with navigation categories — users won’t click on a category unless it’s clear where they will go, before they click. Of course, some will try links out just to see where they lead, but that’s a relatively small subset of users (usually very motivated and in search of something elusive). We find that many people ignore vague link names entirely.

In our information-architecture course, we spend a lot of time talking about creating good labels for navigation menus and links. The concept that we return to over and over is that of strong information scent — the link label must give users a clear sense of what they’re going to find when clicking. We stress that clarity is the most important factor when choosing the words that will represent IA categories.

Here are 3 common IA mistakes that are all rooted in labels with poor information scent.

1. Vague Calls-to-Action (Aren’t Magical Spells)

Conventional advice suggests that webpages need to have a strong call-to-action: for users to know what to do, they need an explicit next step (particularly on a page with high-information density). The typical advice is to word calls-to-action as verbs (e.g., Get started now, Sign up, and so on). The idea behind this advice is that giving users a convenient and noticeable next step (such as signing up, creating an account, placing an order, or booking a sales call) will prevent them from abandoning the site. That’s useful advice in certain circumstances, but not all. It is not always needed (or beneficial) to phrase links as calls-to-action; navigation links, in particular, do not benefit from such call-to-action wording. 

A call-to-action is not a hypnotic spell that will automatically persuade users to click — the value of the suggested action has to be obvious to users. The call-to-action needs to be clear, contextually meaningful, and the action you’re suggesting must be compelling to users. In navigation, there is relatively little context you can provide other than the link label itself; and, in isolation, a word such as Explore or Connect doesn’t have much meaning. If I’m looking for specific information, a vague term like Learn or Explore isn’t a match for my goal, so why would I click on it?

The purpose of using actionable, verb-laden phrasing is to give an obvious, contextually relevant suggestion to users in the middle of dense information: if you are feeling overwhelmed or don’t know what to do next, a clear suggestion can be welcome. However, if you have multiple, competing calls-to-action, they diminish each other’s salience. 

On an informational site that seeks to get users to sign up for something, a clear call-to-action link on the page can be valuable, as it guides users to a next step. Even here, though, that link needs to have a label with high-information scent (rather than a vague one like Read more or Learn more).

However, navigation-category labels don’t need to be phrased as calls-to-action. That’s because navigation is explicitly about giving the user multiple choices as to where to go next. Vague verbs (such as Explore, Discover, Learn, Partner, etc.) are not effective category names — they offer too little differentiation and do not help users make an effective, informed choice. Don’t use them for your navigation categories.

Note that it’s not the use of the verbs per se that is problematic. Rather, the vague, action-oriented verbs that are the issue. Task-based categories can be successfully labeled with specific verbs that describe what the user is about to do (such as Go Paperless & Auto Pay for a utility site, for example).

A navigation menu with the categories
Tibco uses a vague category label (Engage) for content that is inherently informational, such as resources and reference materials. The label doesn’t give users a clear sense of what they will find under that category and there is limited context nearby to suggest what it means. Despite being a call-to-action, this label is unlikely to convince users to click on it.
A navigation menu with the categories
Call-to-action labels can still be well-executed if they are clear, have high information scent, and match user goals. One of Xfinity’s navigation categories has a label with high information scent (Build Your Plan). This wording works well, as it gives users a clear indication of what to expect when they follow that link.

2. Forced Parallel Language

Using the same part of speech for all navigation labels is sometimes employed to impart a sense of cohesion and linguistic rhythm to the information architecture. When done well, it can also add consistency. Moreover, a break in pattern can signal implicit subsections among several categories; for example, if the navigation uses nouns for informational categories and then switches to verbs for task-based categories, this part-of-speech difference can subtly alert users of different types of navigation sections. 

Website navigation with the categories
FedEx has two main, but different lines of business: shipping and printing. Its navigation uses parallel language for some navigation options (Shipping and Tracking are both gerunds) and then switches to subtly indicate a difference in the types of service (Design & Print are short infinitives). Finally, it uses nouns (Locations and Support) to indicate other informational (rather than task-focused) categories. This is a subtle signal that most users won’t consciously recognize, but that may help them differentiate among different types of menu options.

However, parallel language is not necessary for a usable, understandable information architecture. Forcing parallel language may make things worse if some categories don’t naturally fit into that pattern.

Website navigation with the categories
Macquarie University attempts to use parallel language for its primary navigation categories (Study, Research, Partner). Study and Research are acceptable labels (though there is no advantage gained by using verbs for inherently informational content), but Partner is a label with low-information scent for heterogeneous information such as how to donate, how to hire students, library information, maps of the campus, and resources for staff and alumni.

3. Awkward (and Vague) Conversational Language

Another commonplace IA mistake is to use overly conversational navigation labels in an attempt to be friendly, encouraging, and approachable. While a noble goal, this attempt often fails for a few reasons:

  • The labels end up being vague and low in information scent. I want to… is a common culprit — all that it signals to users is that this category will have some task-based options; users are left to guess (or, more likely, ignore) what those specific options are.
  • The tone of voice may conflict with users’ emotional valence and feel condescending or manipulative. Cheerful language doesn’t work when users are engaging in a task they already dread. People generally don’t like being told how they should feel, especially if they are frustrated or already having a poor experience. For example, using a category name like I want to… for information on paying taxes directly contradicts how most users feel about their task – most people don’t enthusiastically research tax information, they do it because it’s necessary. 
  • Conversational language isn’t automatically user-centric, just because it mimics human interactions; it can feel awkward and inefficient in situations that aren’t conversational in nature. A conversation is an inherently social interaction, and an important part of that is its reciprocal nature — both parties have agency and can intelligently react to one another. Your website navigation isn’t reacting to your users’ needs — users won’t be fooled into thinking that they are having a casual chat with a friend while interacting with your website. Additionally, interacting with navigation categories that use conversational, vague language is inefficient. Humans do allow for some inefficiency in conversations with other humans, because of their social nature — the pleasantries we share before getting down to details slow us down, but they serve to build social ties. However, when dealing with a digital product, people aren’t trying to build a relationship, they just want to quickly get to the information they need.

As with the other two mistakes in this article, the solution is to not pick words just because they sound good; instead, focus on clear, descriptive labels with high information scent. Conversational wording will often need to be lengthy to be clear, and so reserve it for places where longer phrases are more appropriate: headers and subheaders or descriptive passages, rather than navigation labels.

Website navigation for a state tax department with the category
The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (the tax-collection authority) attempts to use conversational navigation labels (I want to…, Learn more about) but these are vague and also unlikely to match users’ emotional state as they research tax information. The I want to… label essentially communicates that this category is the only relevant one for most users but doesn’t give a clear indication of what’s contained within.

Summary

Links and category names with low information scent create confusion and ambiguity; they are rarely clicked on. Vague verb calls-to-action (such as Learn, Explore, or Partner) don’t work well in navigation because they aren’t descriptive. Parallel language (such as similar parts of speech or alliteration) for all navigation categories is not necessary and can create odd category names. Conversational language misses the mark for navigation labels as it is often ambiguous, may conflict with a user’s current emotional state, and feels artificial.



Source link