On 6 Nov 2002, at 9:45, Michael McKee wrote:

> The one thing that we often forget in the quest for
> usability is that people tend to think symbolically.
> Cognitive scientists tell us that we create symbolic
> analogs for concepts and remember that analog rather than
> full concept. Of course, writing is a symbol but one less
> easily remembered than an image.

Depends on the person. Keep in mind that most people 
recognize words by their *shape*, not by looking at 
individual words. In that sense, a word is just as much 
a "symbolic analog" for a concept as a picture.

Also, one may remember an image very well, but not 
necessarily the "meaning" of that image.

> Think of any corporate logo and you'll realize that the
> name of the company is not only a word but a stylized
> image. IBM, does not brand itself with a generic
> sans-serif font. It offers us an image to go with the
> text. Try a simple experiment. Think of the name of any
> major corporation. Do you bring up an image of the
> name? Most people do. Right now I'm looking at the row
> of icons across the top of my e-mail program. Isn't
> that navigation? 

Not neccessarily. As gets covered frequently in the 
information design field, designing icons that readily 
communicate their function by their appearance is a 
*very* difficult task. The Internet makes this even 
worse, because you don't necessarily have a common 
cultural background re graphics and colors.

Then there are folk like me. I'm a very visual person, but 
I find it far easier to remember and recognize words 
than icons. In fact, I usually don't try to decipher icons 
on toolbars and such. I hover my pointer over it, hoping 
it will provide a tooltip (or a URL in the status line) to 
give me a clue as to what it does.

Other people have visual processing dfficulties that 
make it difficult for them to handle heavily (or even 
moderately) graphical user interfaces. (I've worked with 
and supported such people. They have perfect vision, 
optically, but their visual processing centers get 
overwhelmed easily by lots of graphics and graphic 
details.) For such people, a simple text menu, perhaps 
with a simple text color change to help them identify 
what part the pointer is over, is much more accessible 
than a navigation tool bar populated by icons.

The "bread crumbs" navigation tool popularized by 
Yahoo is a great example of a text navigation tool that 
works eminently well, and IMHO far better than a string 
of icons.

> Since we want our visitors to quickly understand the page
> navigation, well considered images can help with their
> ability to "grasp" our navigation scheme and site
> structure.

See above about difficulty of designing images for these 
purposes.

The navigation scheme and site structure should make 
a cognitive connection with the visitor, regardless of 
whether the visual presentation is graphical, textual, or 
whatever.

> Plain text does not directly equate with more
> usability.

Text (as in words) are much more universally 
accessible than graphics in some cases. Which is 
better - a graphic that could (maybe) be decoded to 
mean "stop", or the word in text? I'd vote for the word in 
text, especially if I'm keeping in mind people for whom 
the English word "stop" may mean nothing. For them, 
I'd much rather provide the word in their native language.

> It only equates with smaller file sizes,

There are additional cognitive issues involved with 
making visitors wait too long, so smaller file sizes and 
the resulting faster downloads can be quite important.

> a good thing but not the end all of good design.  If
> the navigation elements are skillfully created and the
> alt and title attributes are well written, images can
> add to navigation. Rollovers, but not "fancy" DHTML,
> also help people relate to a menu. 

True, but the items listed above don't necessarily 
equate with more usability, either. I've been on sites 
that were "skillfully created" and yet virtual impossible 
to navigate - such as the home sites of many "web 
design firms."

David
dvjones(at)ksbe.edu

> best wishes,
> michael
> 
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 06:32  AM, Ann Ezzell
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Another question along the lines of my question about
> > fluid vs fixed-size layout (thanks for all the responses
> > to that!)
> >
> > I've been moving away from using graphics for my menus
> > to increase accessibility, reduce download time,
> > simplify site maintenance, and probably some other
> > reasons that escape me right now.
> >
> > But I'm getting some feedback that people don't like the
> > look of the text-based menus - they seem to want the
> > look of the graphics.
> >
> > I don't want to get into using a "fancy" DHTML menu,
> > because I have yet to find one that's reliable enough
> > for my pickiness (so please don't recommend that I try
> > Acme Brand DHTML Menu, because that's not my question
> > ;-)
> >
> > What are you using? Graphics? Text? What are the
> > reactions to your menus?
 

• Web Designer Courses
• Off the Shelf Training Courses

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA