In reply to Tommy Donehower's message about a 19-tab layout, here are a few
things I've learned about tabs and users.
First, as with tabs in software, the metaphor doesn't work well if the tab
order changes every time you pick a tab. (That is, tabs 1,2 and 3 in one
row, 4,5 and 6 in the next row, but if you click on 5, for example, the
4,5,6 row becomes the front one.) This is a simple design fix.
Second, when tabs are at the top of the page, especially if they're above a
banner or banner-like header, users may not even see them. Banner blindness
and all that. Site logs should show you whether users are clicking those tab
links, and you can do your own math to figure out what proportion of users
may not have seen the tabs.
Third, at least with the people I watched on Amazon.com, users sometimes
didn't seem even to notice the second rank of tabs -- or at least they never
used them. When you're stealing, er, borrowing ideas from a successful site
it's not always clear you're taking the best ones. Caveat borrower.
Fourth, as long as the site's structure convinces users that they're always
moving forward, users don't seem to care how many layers there are. However,
if the tab structure sends them forward to perform a task, then forces them
to bounce back and choose another tab, then bounce forward, then back, users
seem to lose confidence that they're making progress. Remember, every time a
user clicks on a tab, he/she probably goes to a new page with all the
attendant overhead and potential frustration of loading new pages (or goes
to somewhere else on the same page and that *feels* like a new page);
scrolling even long pages takes far less time and is far less risky to
users.
Finally, I'm leery of any rule that decrees specific numbers (e.g., only
three colors per page, use only two fonts, blah, blah, blah). Still, 19
seems like a lot of tabs, especially if it forces users to bounce back and
forth. There might be a better way to group the choices, perhaps stealing
the semi-hierarchical structure from Yahoo? Or maybe
P.S. Are you *sure* the users will "roll over the model" as you note in your
message? I'd never bet on that one. Talk about hidden links! (Or, as the
initials of his company suggest, aye yi yi!)
_________
Richard A. Danca, Usability Specialist
TechTarget.com
117 Kendrick St., Suite 800, Needham, MA 02494
781-657-1328 (phone) 781-657.1100 (fax)
mailto:[log in to unmask]
---------------------------------------------------------
About CHI-WEB: http://www.acm.org/sigchi/web/chi-web.html
---------------------------------------------------------
|