While individual newspapers vary widely in scope and quantity of content, in general terms, their products and objectives are very similar.

I believe the best solution to meet the online navigation needs of most newspapers is a semi-static, text-only, left-side navigation which lists all regularly updated sections and clearly shows users where they are in the site.

MY EXAMPLE
• Ultimate Online Newspaper

REAL LIFE SITES THAT COME CLOSE (but don't really get it right)
• Charleston.net (The Post & Courier)
• The New York Times
• SFGate.com (San Francisco Chronicle)
• MaineToday.com (Portland PressHerald)

Advantages:

1. Visual: It allows for easy scanning of site content and allows users to find the information they seek quickly. No horizontal lines separating each item or alternating line colors to disrupt the visual flow. No having to click or mouseover each main section head to see what lies within. And no ads interrupting content -- well-designed ads do just fine at the bottom of the navigation bar and there they should stay!

2. Navigation speed: No having to navigate through a section front to move from desired section to desired section.

3. Page weight: The code is plain and simple, reducing page weight, particularly as compared to rollover triggered sub-sections. News sites in particular don't gain much from wowing users with fancy rollovers and button-like graphics. Readers are there for news, not to wonder at the artistry of site designers.

4. Forces to scroll: I know what you're thinking, users don't want to scroll. Yes and no. But actually more and more research has been indicating that maybe users don't mind scrolling so much if it isn't excessive. And since newspaper Web pages tend to have important information below the scroll, drawing users down to it regularly probably isn't a bad idea.

5. Flexibility: The simple design allows site producers to add or remove sections/channels as needed without having to contact engineers or high-level programmers. Less than two weeks into the war in Iraq, many major news organizations have enough content to warrant a channel devoted to the coverage. Want to add it? Go ahead. (Caution: War is one thing. And if the paper stops producing a section in print, it probably needs to go away online as well. But if you're changing your universal navigation once a month there's a problem.)

Exceptions:

1. If a site is truly too large and listing out each section would force excessive scrolling, this may not be the best solution. However I believe most sites do not meet this "simply too many subchannels" qualification. Even The New York Times, one of the largest online news sites, could do away with the subchannel links it lists in the navigation once users reach a channel front.

On the travel front, for example, the Times lists six additional subchannels on the navigation bar. Not only do these still fall below the scroll on most 15- to 17-inch screens, two are standing boxes at the top right of the travel page and the other links could easily be added in that same area. Leverage your channel fronts before you confuse readers by cluttering up your navigation bar.

2. I should add that I believe there is an even better solution for sites which have registration or subscription capabilities, and that is to add to this design by allowing users to set their preferences for navigation bar ordering. If they want sports in the number one position always, no matter what section they're in, let them have it. If they want to set links to individual "favorites" pages above the listed sections, let them. But -- for now at least -- I will leave the task of implementing this functionality to superior programmers. =)

Notes:

I debated long and hard with myself over whether to leave each section in its respective place on the navigation bar or to bring the current section to the top. Without access to usability tests to determine which method most users prefer, I based my decision on a few informal interviews and the idea that users who are interested in a particular subject matter are likely to be interested in related pages and would prefer to have them at hand. I would be happy to change this aspect of the navigation bar if evidence is produced that users would in fact prefer the navigation to remain completely static so frequent users always know exactly how far to scroll. I could see it going either way, but the people I spoke with preferred the move-to-top approach. (Actually, above all they wanted to have their favorites at the top -- oh and, by the way, they want this preference setting to be VERY, VERY, VERY easy. When I asked if there was a site which they thought made setting preferences easy, I was met with blank stares.)

March 30, 2003