In the last decade, we have seen some important changes in the way that users behave on the Web. We know now that on information pages, users will scroll. We also know that 3 clicks to service is not required, as long as the navigation path accurately reflects and reinforces the user's information model. We have learned that if designed from the interaction perspective, rollover menus can be usable. (Designers still struggle with this last one.) This evolution may reflect the fact that users now have more exposure to the web and are more familiar with how it works. Alternatively, this could reflect that descriptions of user behavior in the browser environment is becoming more sophisticated. Or maybe it's a bit of both.
There are some things, however, that users simply do not seem prepared to learn on their own. Multiple-select interactions is one of those things. Breadcrumb navigation is another.
Derived from Hansel and Gretel (Rogers & Chaparro, 2003), breadcrumb navigation provides users a persistent shortcut to find their way "home" on a Web site. Specifically, breadcrumbs are a secondary form of navigation (see figure below) that, in some cases, provide users the decision path they took to arrive at that page. In other cases, breadcrumbs reveal the hierarchical path showing the present page in relation to the information architecture of the site. (Users, by the way, tend to assume that the breadcrumb trail reflects the former, or their decision path.)
The resistance to using breadcrumbs is perplexing. They increase efficiency. They support site learning. They reduce the user's "where-was-I?" memory burden by providing a list of recently visited pages. They make it easier to cross levels of the navigation decision tree within the browser environment.
Breadcrumbs make site learning and navigation more efficient. And it's the designer's job to enhance efficiency, right? So we continue to design sites with breadcrumbs.
But breadcrumbs are only beneficial if users notice them. And largely, they don't. Or maybe they do and they are telling us something.
Actually, breadcrumbs are not helpful in every environment. When a user arrives at a site knowing exactly what they want (e.g., I want to buy the book called, "How to think straight about Psychology"), breadcrumb navigation (or for that matter browser navigation) is not all that efficient. For these guided, tactical-strike tasks, users tend to use search. And search tends to work (Spool, 2002).
However, when the task involves one or more browse/ compare/ select sequences (e.g., "Buy a snow boarding shell" as opposed to "Buy the North Face Gully Shell"), studies demonstrate that breadcrumb use increases efficiency (Maldonodo and Resnick, 2002; Bowler, Ng & Schwartz, 2001).
But users don't use breadcrumbs spontaneously. Studies show that, too.
Not surprisingly, the picture is not so black and white. Super users DO use breadcrumbs. You do, don't you? And you use them because they are efficient. They make sense.
This difference explains why users' reluctance to exploit breadcrumbs presents such an affront to the sensibilities of designers. Such an affront, in fact, that studies now seek to describe both contexts in which users might exploit breadcrumbs and also how to get users to change: Lazar and Eisenbrey (2000) report findings that indicate that the first step in making breadcrumb trails useful is to train users that they exist. They can be trained, right? After all, users have learned to scroll.
A recent paper by Hull, Chaparro and Halcomb (2004) builds on this approach, seeking to identify how much instruction is necessary to teach users to see and use breadcrumbs. Within their study, they asked participants to find and select a list of items (related to a camping trip) on a major retail site. Before setting a participant loose on the site, they presented her one of 3 levels of instruction about navigation:
The explicit instructions group used breadcrumbs to navigate approximately 1/3 more than other groups. This seemingly small increase in use of breadcrumbs to move around resulted in significantly faster task completion, fewer visited pages and less reliance on the back button.
Hull and colleagues conclude that minimal training may be sufficient to get users to increase their use of breadcrumbs and, as such, increase their task efficiency. Specifically, they argue that training makes sense in Intranet environments, where the ROI for the training would be more than offset by increased productivity.
Still, the idea that users need to be trained should be a red flag. And the idea of providing training to public Web site users is not viable. Maybe these users are telling us something about breadcrumbs. Another job of designers is to hear the users, right?
Making things more efficient may be one goal for designers, but listening to (and hearing) the users is a larger goal.
Executing the business goals through good design is an even more primary goal. Taken from that perspective, efficiency of task completion may not be the holy grail in e-tail environments. In bricks-and-mortar retail environments, being exposed to something increases your likelihood of buying it. Think candy in the supermarket checkout aisle. Further, the longer you browse, the more you are likely to buy. It is reasonable to believe that these same effects hold in on-line environments.
To that end, successful e-tailers do everything they can facilitate browsing. Think Amazon. Amazon is one of those environmentsāor the original books/music store was, at leastāwhere users often know exactly what they want, to conduct a strategic search and leave. Amazon's designers know that. And they go to great (and successful!) lengths to offset that tendency and encourage browsing to combat it.
Still, there is an art to this kind of salesmanship. Customers need to feel they are in control of their purchasing experience. Providing a tour guide, as Amazon does, can be ok. After all, I can ignore him. However, the hard sell doesn't work: Remember the break-the-back-button strategy? The idea was if you break the back button, people will stay longer. If they stay longer they will see more pages. If they see more pages (even if they are only trying to escape), eventually something will catch their eye and they will buy. It's interesting logic...derived directly from mall architecture ("I can see the Starbucks, but can we get to it?")...it just didn't work. Frustrating users doesn't sell things. Don't break the back button.
Let's go back again to Hull, Chaparro and Halcomb (2004). In their study, they used a reasonably well organized retail site to test their hypothesis. Their participants that used the breadcrumbs finished the task more quickly than those who used traditional navigation (including the back button). They also traversed significantly fewer pages along the way. They were more efficient, but are you beginning to see why that may not be the right goal? The converse question is the key question: Were the participants that completed the tasks more slowly less satisfied with their experience?
No. In fact, there were no reliable differences in user satisfaction levels between the three groups. Increasing the use of breadcrumbs as navigation shortcuts did not improve the experience. Traversing more pages did not frustrate the users.
So here's what we have to work with:
Maybe the users are telling us something. And maybe we should listen.
1. In an overly simplified nutshell, Zajonc's (1968) "mere exposure" effect describes another of the shortcut that humans take to shortcut algorithmic logic. We tend to favor things that we are more familiar with. Familiarity, here, is very loosely defined. So simply being exposed to something ("mere exposure) can increase our familiarity with it, and thereby influence our liking. Clearly, this effect is exploited in advertising. It has also been used to explain phenomena like why people (really do!) more frequently marry the girl/boy next door, why name recognition is more important than platform or behavior in elections and why "knowns" can feel safer than "unknowns".
2. Incidentally, anecdotal and proprietary studies suggest that it's not breadcrumbs but their visual design and placement that mitigates use: Users note design elements that are highly salient/important (e.g., global navigation), highly visible or is in the area they are looking at on the screen. And when the breadcrumb navigation trail is visible and presented where the user is looking, users tend to exploit them more.
Bowler, D., Ng, W., and Schwartz, P. (2001). Navigation bars for hierarchical websites. Retrieved 01/20/03 from University of Maryland, Student HCI Online Research.
Hull, S.S., Chaparro, B.S., & Halcomb, C.G. (2004). The Influence of Mere Exposure on Web Based Breadcrumb Navigation, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, 1552-1556.
Lazar, N., & Eisenbrey, M. (2000). Website structural navigation. Retrieved April 29, 2003, from University of Maryland, Student HCI Online Research.
Maldonado, C. A. & Resnick, M.L. (2002). Do common user interface design patterns improve navigation? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, 1315-1319.
Rogers, B.L. & Chaparro, B.S.(2003). Breadcrumb Navigation: Further Investigation of Usage, Usability News, 5.2.
Spool, J. (2002), In search of the perfect search: Building the perfect on-site search, CHI 2002 Tutorial.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9(2, Pt. 2).
Sign up to get our Newsletter delivered straight to your inbox
HFI may use ācookiesā or āweb beaconsā to track how Users use the Website. A cookie is a piece of software that a web server can store on Usersā PCs and use to identify Users should they visit the Website again. Users may adjust their web browser software if they do not wish to accept cookies. To withdraw your consent after accepting a cookie, delete the cookie from your computer.
HFI believes that every User should know how it utilizes the information collected from Users. The Website is not directed at children under 13 years of age, and HFI does not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from children under 13 years of age online. Please note that the Website may contain links to other websites. These linked sites may not be operated or controlled by HFI. HFI is not responsible for the privacy practices of these or any other websites, and you access these websites entirely at your own risk. HFI recommends that you review the privacy practices of any other websites that you choose to visit.
HFI is based, and this website is hosted, in the United States of America. If User is from the European Union or other regions of the world with laws governing data collection and use that may differ from U.S. law and User is registering an account on the Website, visiting the Website, purchasing products or services from HFI or the Website, or otherwise using the Website, please note that any personally identifiable information that User provides to HFI will be transferred to the United States. Any such personally identifiable information provided will be processed and stored in the United States by HFI or a service provider acting on its behalf. By providing your personally identifiable information, User hereby specifically and expressly consents to such transfer and processing and the uses and disclosures set forth herein.
In the course of its business, HFI may perform expert reviews, usability testing, and other consulting work where personal privacy is a concern. HFI believes in the importance of protecting personal information, and may use measures to provide this protection, including, but not limited to, using consent forms for participants or ādummyā test data.
HFI may use personally identifiable information collected through the Website for the specific purposes for which the information was collected, to process purchases and sales of products or services offered via the Website if any, to contact Users regarding products and services offered by HFI, its parent, subsidiary and other related companies in order to otherwise to enhance Usersā experience with HFI. HFI may also use information collected through the Website for research regarding the effectiveness of the Website and the business planning, marketing, advertising and sales efforts of HFI. HFI does not sell any User information under any circumstances.
HFI may disclose personally identifiable information collected from Users to its parent, subsidiary and other related companies to use the information for the purposes outlined above, as necessary to provide the services offered by HFI and to provide the Website itself, and for the specific purposes for which the information was collected. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information at the request of law enforcement or governmental agencies or in response to subpoenas, court orders or other legal process, to establish, protect or exercise HFIās legal or other rights or to defend against a legal claim or as otherwise required or allowed by law. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information in order to protect the rights, property or safety of a User or any other person. HFI may disclose personally identifiable information to investigate or prevent a violation by User of any contractual or other relationship with HFI or the perpetration of any illegal or harmful activity. HFI may also disclose aggregate, anonymous data based on information collected from Users to investors and potential partners. Finally, HFI may disclose or transfer personally identifiable information collected from Users in connection with or in contemplation of a sale of its assets or business or a merger, consolidation or other reorganization of its business.
If a User includes such Userās personally identifiable information as part of the User posting to the Website, such information may be made available to any parties using the Website. HFI does not edit or otherwise remove such information from User information before it is posted on the Website. If a User does not wish to have such Userās personally identifiable information made available in this manner, such User must remove any such information before posting. HFI is not liable for any damages caused or incurred due to personally identifiable information made available in the foregoing manners. For example, a User posts on an HFI-administered forum would be considered Personal Information as provided by User and subject to the terms of this section.
Information about Users that is maintained on HFIās systems or those of its service providers is protected using industry standard security measures. However, no security measures are perfect or impenetrable, and HFI cannot guarantee that the information submitted to, maintained on or transmitted from its systems will be completely secure. HFI is not responsible for the circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures relating to the Website by any Users or third parties.
Human Factors International, Inc.
PO Box 2020
1680 highway 1, STE 3600
Fairfield IA 52556
HFI reserves the right to cancel any course up to 14 (fourteen) days prior to the first day of the course. Registrants will be promptly notified and will receive a full refund or be transferred to the equivalent class of their choice within a 12-month period. HFI is not responsible for travel expenses or any costs that may be incurred as a result of cancellations.
$100 processing fee if cancelling within two weeks of course start date.
4 Pack + Exam registration: Rs. 10,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (4 Pack-CUA/CXA) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Individual Modules: Rs. 3,000 per participant āper moduleā processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the course (any Individual HFI course) registration before three weeks from the course start date. No refund or carry forward of the course fees if cancelling or transferring the course registration within three weeks before the course start date.
Exam: Rs. 3,000 per participant processing fee (to be paid by the participant) if cancelling or transferring the pre agreed CUA/CXA exam date before three weeks from the examination date. No refund or carry forward of the exam fees if requesting/cancelling or transferring the CUA/CXA exam within three weeks before the examination date.
There will be no audio or video recording allowed in class. Students who have any disability that might affect their performance in this class are encouraged to speak with the instructor at the beginning of the class.
The course and training materials and all other handouts provided by HFI during the course are published, copyrighted works proprietary and owned exclusively by HFI. The course participant does not acquire title nor ownership rights in any of these materials. Further the course participant agrees not to reproduce, modify, and/or convert to electronic format (i.e., softcopy) any of the materials received from or provided by HFI. The materials provided in the class are for the sole use of the class participant. HFI does not provide the materials in electronic format to the participants in public or onsite courses.