SIGIA-L Mail Archives: RE: SIGIA-L: Posting Site Maps?
RE: SIGIA-L: Posting Site Maps?
From: Osborg, Bill (bill_at_olympusgroup.com)
Date: Thu Oct 19 2000 - 16:20:02 EDT
egroups allows up to 10MB of space per discussion group. Since (sorry, I
forgot who) someone is creating an egroups discussion list for blueprints,
perhaps that would be a good web-based spot. Sending large attachments via
email may not be the best solution, especially for those users retrieving
mail through a dial-up connection.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Laliberte [mailto:mlaliberte_at_flywire.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 2:35 PM
To: sigia-l
Subject: SIGIA-L: Posting Site Maps?
So where will we be posting our site maps? I've been able to convince my
superiors that posting the maps would benefit us in innumerable ways (though
I have to clean them up to avoid any proprietary legal issues). Shall we
just attach copies to our emails? Sufficient?
Matthew D. Laliberte
Information Architect
www.flywire.com <http://www.flywire.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Leise [mailto:leise_at_argus-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 11:32 AM
To: sigia-l
Cc: sigia-l
Subject: Re: SIGIA-L: Site Map Rendering
Hmm. This is exactly where site indexes make sense. And I mean a real index,
leading to all important chunks of information. They allow users to scan an
alphabetical list of contents without needing to know where the specific
information is. They just need to get there. Which is what a good web index
can do.
Fred Leise
Information Architect, Argus Associates
leise_at_argus-inc.com <mailto:leise_at_argus-inc.com>
734-332-0939
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt <mailto:mlaliberte_at_flywire.com> Laliberte
To: 'Eric Reiss' <mailto:reiss_at_cbc.dk>
Cc: sigia-l_at_asis.org <mailto:sigia-l_at_asis.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: SIGIA-L: Site Map Rendering
Assuredly so- what use is a site map if it turns a user back out into the
site to get lost again? Makes no sense at all. Both incantations of
Prudential's site map are interesting, and they bring up an interesting
question: How deep should a site map allow a user to go? Unless a content
area is branded as a standard site location, I would say that no discrete
content areas should be included (a group of related articles would be in,
but a particular article would not be). On smaller sites, it's easier to
integrate all branded site locations, but on larger sites, such as
Prudential's, where does one draw the line?
Matthew D. Laliberte
Information Architect
www.flywire.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Reiss [ mailto:reiss_at_cbc.dk <mailto:reiss_at_cbc.dk> ]
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 9:35 AM
To: mlaliberte_at_flywire.com
Cc: sigia-l_at_asis.org
Subject: Re: SIGIA-L: Site Map Rendering
Dear Matt,
Yes, there are a zillion different site-map designs (including graphic
trees), but I don't think that the number of individual columns is the key
usability issue here. Rather, it is helpful if the user doesn't have to
scroll, which would suggest that a multi-column form might be appropriate
in many cases.
An interesting example is www.prudential.com, which uses its home page as
a site map, and differs surprisingly little in content from the actual
site map. Compare the two and decide for yourself which is a more
convenient form. I tend to prefer the main page.
Perhaps the most important usability issue of all is that site maps should
contain hyperlinks, not just static labels. I'm amazed at how many maps
tell you where things are, but don't help you get there!
Best regards,
Eric L. Reiss
Cross-Border Communications A/S
Copenhagen, Denmark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:24 EST
|
