SIGIA-L Mail Archives: Re: SIGIA-L: Throwing mud: cartographic
Re: SIGIA-L: Throwing mud: cartographic representation of site structure
From: Ziya Oz (ziyaoz_at_earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 01:28:00 EDT
Eric Scheid wrote:
>> I have a problem with using them to cover up the
>> inadequacies of the main navigation and site structure.
>
> That statement can just as easily apply to a site search engine, or even
> in-context linking.
Indeed.
> I've yet to hear a site-map specific argument as to why site maps are
> intrinsically bad (as different from arguments that *some* site maps are
> bad).
I love lists.
I love maps.
One of my favorite places to visit
<http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/pmhtml/panmap.html>
I love info-graphics.
I love cartography.
I love 3D navigation.
So I have nothing against site maps per se. They are evil when they are
used to "cover up the inadequacies of the main navigation and site
structure."
I know my sex, name, sanity, etc., have been questioned here :-) but it's
not very complicated: I want a web site structure/navigation to be
self-sufficient, without having to rely on a site map (or another device
of further abstraction).
Eric just pointed out to me that Google had a site map. If you look for it
on their home page under Site Map you won't find it; it's the About Google
link. I've used Google from its day one on the net, and until today, I've
never even noticed or used its site map. I doubt non-IA/UX people have
either. And that's what's good about Google: its main function neither
requires nor encourages its usage. Google can easily live without its
"site map" and prosper. I can live with that.
Best,
Ziya
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2
: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 22:54:48 EST
|
