[Discussion] Navigational Redesign

Summary:

So, I'm writing this to document what I can only assume is my sudden descent into insanity. I can't possibly be THAT bad a navigator, and yet as I write this I've been trapped in the topbar for 2 days.

[Discussion] Navigational Redesign

OptimisticLucio 06 Oct 2021 18:19

^{Link to Mainsite Mirror}

Hey all. For the past few months, MAST's Navigation team has been working on a sorely needed redesign for the topbar and sidebar of the Wiki. I'd elaborate on the specifics, but this link showcases both the reasoning for the redesign and the redesign itself, so it'd probably better if you just check that out.

Topics of discussion are whether you think this change is good or even necessary, anything that can be changed or added, and optionally if we should just do away with the favicons next to the sidebar links, since aside from Home none of them serve a purpose anymore.

This discussion will be open to all staff for a week.

Last edited on 06 Oct 2021 18:20 by OptimisticLucio Show more

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

OptimisticLucio 14 Oct 2021 05:08

The timer has ended, and we've implemented (or atleast considered) the different responses to this redesign. Before going to vote, we're going to pass it by the IO social media platforms for about three days to also see what kind of insight we'd get from the userbase who doesn't frequent 05command or the onsite policy forum.

Once that's finished, it'll go up for a five day vote.

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

OptimisticLucio 16 Oct 2021 09:33

Following extremely enthusiastic support from the offsite, the vote has been put up.

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

Croquembouche 07 Oct 2021 01:57

As someone who helped with this and is therefore entirely unbiased and objective, I think this is overall an excellent change. In particular I think that it's really important that both the sidebar and the topbar have clearly-defined scopes and that they stick to them, which is something our current navigational elements don't do at all.

In fact the only problem I have with this new design is the 'For New Users' collapsible. Navigation team members are already aware of my beef with it, so for the sake of documenting it for everyone else I'll detail my thoughts below:

+ show block

The justification for the 'For New Users' collapsible is, as I understand it, as follows:

1. It's important for there to be a place for new users to go, as otherwise new users will be instantly lost and without context.
2. It's important for that place to be on every page, as new users may visit any page as their first page.
3. Existing users don't need the information from the new users section, so it would be nice if it was hidden from them so as not to take up unnecessary space. A collapsible works well for this.
4. However, collapsibles are not intuitive and Wikidot's 'standard' way of declaring a collapsible (putting a + in front of it) isn't standard anywhere else on the web. (Even the term 'collapsible' isn't standardised.) So we need a way of clearly indicating to new users that there is content for them here and that they should interact with it. This is achieved by naming the collapsible 'For New Users', in the hope that new users will self-identify and click it.
   • In a previous iteration the link text was even more explicit, being 'New? Click Here!', however arguments were raised (mostly by me) that that wording sounded patronising and went against accessibility guidelines for contextual links (i.e. don't make your link "click here", make it a description of what clicking it will do)

I agree with (1) and (2).

I don't agree with (3), that existing users don't need the information, I think it's useful to all users. I also don't agree that there's any benefit to specificallly hiding that section - it's only 3 links, it's not that much space. (A counter-argument that was raised to me was a desire for future-proofing - sure, it's only 3 links now, but what about in a year when people have added to it? My response to that, as a programmer, is not to optimise before you need to - cross that bridge when you get there.)

I agree with (4), that collapsibles aren't intuitive - one of my first experiences on the site was missing the punchline to Swann's proposal because I didn't know to open the collapsible that contained it, resulting in me only finding it years later on a reread. The solution to that isn't to make the collapsible more obvious, though, it's just to not have a collapsible on the sidebar in the first place. If we need to instruct users on how to use a collapsible that can go somewhere in the required reading.

I also don't believe that new users will always self-identify - people are stubborn and will only read instructions if they think it'll be useful, not if we think it'll be useful. The number of new users we see trying to bypass the site passcode can attest to this. Therefore I think putting the new user-oriented links in a collapsible will only mean that fewer new users see them - particularly when the title of that collapsible doesn't really tell you what you're going to find inside.

Another point is the importance of the About the Foundation link. I think that link that is important not only to new users but also to new visitors who never intend to become users i.e. people just looking around. For them, About the Foundation is important because it'll tell them what the site is and what it's about, but a section hidden behind 'For New Users' won't be of interest to them. If it's instead in an open section, even if the section is titled 'For New Users', the link is available to them.

Overall, I'd keep the new users section, but just put it in a totally normal always-visible section.

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

aismallard 07 Oct 2021 22:41

I like the changes, but reading Croquembouche's thoughts, I'm inclined to agree that "new users" might cause people to self-select away from that. Perhaps changing the collapsible to "What is this?" or some other wording that is easier to accept.

I also agree that collapsibles aren't intuitive, they look identical to links and people often skip them. One thing that HTML @details@ does is have the little arrow, but most of the collapsibles on our site don't have that. Adding a "▶" when closed (and "▾" when open) could help with this.

I suppose another question is, have you done any user studies with the new user info? It's definitely an area that needs careful curation that most wiki users cannot provide, because we're already familiar with the basics of the site.

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

OptimisticLucio 08 Oct 2021 04:45

The arrow is a good idea, I'll add it in.

Perhaps changing the collapsible to "What is this?" or some other wording that is easier to accept.

Wouldn't that be a bit too similar to the original "New? Click Here!" wording? If that wording is preferred I'll use it, but since it seemed to be bad we took it off.

have you done any user studies with the new user info?

If the question was shot at me - the closest I have is scrolling through r/SCP/new and seeing what the most common complaints are. The most common complaints were "Where do I start reading," "what is this place," and "is the foundation real," which is why we had the FAQ, Newbie Guide, and User-curated Lists (which was replaced since it was thought it didn't fit).

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

stormfallen 07 Oct 2021 23:08

(note: am JS)

Agreeing with Croq. There's no real need for a collapsible when there's only three links, it's unintuitive and looks nigh-identical to all the normal links on the sidebar, and the last thing we want is for the most important new user information to be obfuscated in any way.

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

Rounderhouse 07 Oct 2021 16:42

This is very good. Our current setup is kind of a legacy situation — new links and stuff tacked on without concern for the grander scheme of UX, which I can't blame anyone for but has led to kind of a mess today. This shears away a lot of that legacy stuff, and more importantly cuts down on redundancy. The lack of SCP series at the top will probably hurt a little in the short term but I think it's an acceptable change in the interest of more clearly defining the difference between the side and top bars. That said, a few notes:

I agree with CQB that the for new users collapsible is… weird. I don't think it's bad, or that we need to get rid of it or even take it out of a collapsible. I'm of the opinion it kind of blends in with a similarly-hued background and color, and that if we want it to stand out to new users as "click here", we could do that by drawing more attention to it. Color changes, whatever.

I think the Random section should be put between the Series and Stories. The Random buttons are, I'm told, used for a not-insignificant number of people as their primary discovery method. It was my primary discovery method before I joined the site — I think it's going to be more used and should be in a more immediately visible position given that we're changing its look (from the three separate Random X links rn) from what people are used to already.

I think you should swap the headers for the Stories and Discovery section. It feels kind of funky to me that the section marked stories links to the GoI hub, the contest archive, the canon hub, which I would say falls better into Discovery, and the section marked discovery links to Tales, Tales, and New Articles, which I would say are stories. Just my 2c.

These are, of course, minor quibbles in an otherwise excellent and sorely needed slimming-down of our navigation system. I will support it regardless of whether the above suggestions are implemented or not. \o/

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

gee0765 07 Oct 2021 18:09

this is cool. i don't really have an opinion on the collapsible in the sidebar but overall this is a significant improvement over what we've got currently.

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

Raddagher 08 Oct 2021 16:07

Overall this is a huge improvement on the cluster f we have right now, but I would like to throw out that I don't like having Top Rated as a primary option because I feel it drives new people to the same stuff over and over rather than spreading them out to smaller and lesser-read pages like the Random and New buttons do. That's the only opinion I have to add, otherwise it looks great!

Re: [Discussion] Navigational Redesign

Rounderhouse 09 Oct 2021 07:53

The 'Top Rated' link actually leads to the top-rated-pages-this-month slug, so I would imagine it goes to the top of the last 30 days rather than like, the top of all time. So I don't think people going to the same stuff will be too big a problem in the long-term, since the whole thing is gonna cycle out every month. There's probably something to be said about the link text being unclear on where it's going, though.

Last edited on 09 Oct 2021 07:54 by Rounderhouse Show more