Reviewing your website: navigability

This is the third post in a mini-series on website assessment and review.

Anthony Haynes writes: In the previous post I outlined a model, designed to be used by and with non-techies, to support website review and management. The model uses three criteria: stakeholder management; navigability; and design.

In this post the focus lies on the second criterion: navigability.

When reviewing a website, the way that I test this criterion is as follows:

1.     I identify some of the standard types of content that users are likely to access. About half a dozen examples, if they are diverse, is likely to prove sufficient. In the case of the website of a professional membership organisation, examples might include:

a.     what does the profession that the membership body represents actually do?

b.     How can I qualify to join that profession?

c.      What policy positions does the body advocate?

d.     What does the body believe to be its mission and its core values?

e.     What can a layperson learn about the relevant specialism?

f.       What does the annual report say?

2.     I then see how easy it is to access such information. In particular:

a.     How much decision-making is required? Is my path through the website self-evident or do I have to stop and think? Do I find myself disappearing down rabbit holes?

b.     How much clicking or scrolling is required? How relaxing, or otherwise, is the navigation process?

An example of a readily navigable site is that of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health: https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/.

Take, for example, criterion 1 (b) (How can I qualify to join that profession?). ‘Education and careers’ forms one of seven options on the main menu.

This takes one to a page of options, one of which is labelled ‘Apply to paediatrics’ (another option is ‘Training and assessment’). The ‘Apply’ leads to three further options (each a clearly labelled entry route) and these options each provide detailed information.

Another example of good practice concerns criterion 1 (d) (What does the body believe?). One of the options at the head of the page is ‘About’.

That option leads the user straight to statements of the College’s mission and vision, along with supporting texts (Strategy and the annual report).

Information regarding criterion 1 (c) is also easy to uncover. The ‘Key topics’ option on the main menu takes the user directly to content on such issues as child poverty, child protection, and the NHS Long Term Plan.

I have two quibbles regarding the navigation routes.

One is the existence of, in effect, rival menus – one at the top of the page (which is where the ‘About’ option is located) and one a little lower down (which is where the ‘Education and careers’ option is located). I found that this makes the site a little less intuitive.

My second quibble is that, as a section label, ‘Key topics’ is perhaps a little vague. In looking for information on the College’s policy options, I didn’t feel 100% confident that ‘Topics’ would be the section that I needed (though it turned out that it was indeed).

But these are quibbles. I have actually used the site for looking for several additional types of information and can report that it proved readily navigable. I didn’t find myself disappearing down rabbit holes.

I’d even say, to repeat the phrase I used above, I found the experience relaxing.

 

Next up: the design criterion.
Back