Comments on Sitemaps and Site Indexes: What They Are and Why You Should Have Them

Benjamin Doherty — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:36:20 GMT

It’s a real shame that the images are broken on this article…

VJ Beauchamp — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:36:24 GMT

I only wish that I could see the images.

jimmedee — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:43:13 GMT

I agree with Randy. I believe the website user is more educated on the general layout of a site. It seems most corporate websites today abide by the same design principles which in turn create a familiar environment for the user. I think also that reliable, drill-down menu systems offer greater access to content without having to search.

Randy Antin — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:24:58 GMT

I think one other reason why a site map is essential to a Web site and I didn’t see mentioned in the article is for search optimization. While users might have grown more savvy in their Internet navigation and current Web site navigation has improved to a point where users don’t feel the need to use site maps anymore, they are great for search engines to gain easy access to deep areas of your site and help those pages to be indexed in engines like Google.

Of course, you do want them to be design consistent but if the target audience is more of search engines than users—-although it does need to be helpful for users too—-this could influence the idea of the design and organization.

David Locke — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:43:13 GMT

Repeated exposure constitutes a curriculum. It is very likely that visitors are becoming more familiar with the navigation of websites.

I know my boss came back from a conference where a usability expert said, “Nobody user context-sensitivity in help systems.” I told my boss that we taught users not to use them by not providing any payoff. And, I think we trained them to expect presentation, instead of an index into a subset of the available topics.

The same thing could be happening here. Have we accidentally taught visitors not to use sitemaps.

Giles Colborne — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:43:13 GMT

I’d echo the point made by Chris. I don’t see users looking at site maps in user tests (I’m testing multiple sites, Lou).

This makes me sceptical about the need for site maps.

My feeling on site maps is this: when looking for information, users look at the nav first; if they look at the site map, it means the nav isn’t up to the job – so improve the nav.

I’d rather invest my time in some TA and IA.

Paul Kahn — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:22:19 GMT

First let me say that I agree with your positive (L.L. Bean) and negative (Harvard University) examples of current site maps. I think you muddle the commentary a bit. What makes L.L. Bean work and Harvard not work is the relationship between the visualization on the site map and the visualization of the combination of the Home Page and global navigation. The former is a coherent visual and verbal system, with each element reinforcing and complimenting the others. The latter is an inconsistent mess, aggravated by the mess of nomenclature (many names for the same thing in different orders).

You say two very important things, but I wish you would say them more clearly.

1. “A sitemap is a model of the structure of a website on a single page… The most important thing about a sitemap is that it be accurate, easy to scan, and easy to understand.” That is the crux of it, but what aspects of site map design contribute to this goal? How does a good site map do a good job? The “easy to scan” is a function of good visual information design—use of position, color, font, and arrangement of space to present information in a single view.

2. “Unlike a sitemap whose purpose is to illustrate the structure of the website, a site index provides direct access to specific areas of the site.” Well, the site map also provides direct access to specific areas of the site, but it does not need to be either inclusive or exhaustive, nor does it need to bridge the gap between the nomenclature used in the site structure (the information architecture) and the terms a user might be more familiar with, such as an obsolete name for a product. That is the task of an index, and it is very useful for you to point out that the two are different and complimentary aspects of a comprehensive web site navigation system.

There is plenty of confusion on this issue in the Real World Wide Web. Many sites try to solve both problems at the same time and succeed in solving neither. The current Apple web site, where Donald Norman used to work, is a great example of this. The “Site Map” is a site index, far too large to grasp visually and without the benefits of good index design which you enumerate in your article. You can find an image of the Pre-Steve-Jobs-Return Apple site map in the Mapping Web Sites book that Kris Lenk and I published two years ago. That is a site map.

There is one other issue that I wanted to discuss: the easy-to-maintain argument. A site map made from text links is easier to maintain than a graphic site map. This is true because most people who work on web sites do not have the graphic sophistication of great information designers, and any great visual solution is more difficult to maintain than a list of text links. But this argument overlooks the fact that any site map is as difficult to maintain the design of the site itself. A good information architecture – visual design system – site map should be flexible. If we plan for things to change, they can be changed more easily than if we overlook this issue.

To bring this back to your discussion of the site index, I would have to assume that the kind of thorough site index – with double postings, see also, and obsolete name references—is difficult to create and difficult to maintain without the attention of an indexer or a comprehensive metadata scheme and content management system. You describe how PeopleSoft applies all three of these tools to create and maintain. This is a serious investment that probably delivers serious benefit to the user.

It is also interesting to note that the Sun Microsystems web site (www.sun.com), where Jacob Nielsen used to work, has neither a site map nor a site index.

As you cite the Site Map Usability study by the Nielsen Norman Group, it would be interesting to know if you agree or disagree with any of their “28 design guidelines” or their conclusions. I haven’t paid the $56 to read it myself, but perhaps you have.

Louis Rosenfeld — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:43:13 GMT

Cliff, interesting comment. I wonder if decreasing reliance is due to better IA on sites in general, as you’re suggesting, or to users being more familiar with the architecture of the specific site you’re testing? Probably a bit of both, but I’m wondering if your data comes from testing usage of multiple sites or just one?

Cliff Anderson — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:43:13 GMT

I have noticed a change over time in the lab. It seems that fewer and fewer users are using site maps. I attribute that to the woeful state of navigation on early sites. Back then, many users didn’t want to be bothered figuring out the navigation scheme by browsing, and used site maps as a shortcut. As navigation has improved, users seem less and less likely to use site maps. The ones I get who use sitemaps today tend to be old hands at the Internet – perhaps remembering their past successes.

Thomas Vander Wal — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:43:12 GMT

An excellent article…

In user testing that I have done over the years, very few users look to site maps of site indexes when they get stuck. My current client has been trying to educate the Intranet users to look in these places when they get stuck. This has not been that intuitive, except for the most experienced users.

Is there other research showing users taking advantage of these global site resources? Part of the problem has been very poor site maps and indexes have turned the users off.