The Latest Craze
I’d like to share a thought or two about what could well become a trend in web design–positioning the navigation at the bottom of the page. Here are some arguments why I think it may not be such a good idea.
Sites like Powazek.com and KeeganJones.com have introduced the method of putting the navigation at the bottom of the page. Yup, at the very bottom. So, what’s all that about?
We all want our readers to really read the content on our web sites, don’t we? We want them to really read what we have to say, don’t we? Of course we do. But here’s a newsflash for ya–they often don’t. Most of your visitors simply scan throught the page, sometimes stopping on sections that seem interesting. They look for words, sentences, headings… Rarely do they read every word and explore every corner of the web page.
Sure, you’re reading this now, and may well reach the very end of the page, but how many articles have you really read in the last couple of days? If your answer is something like “every single one”, then ask yourself about the majority of web page visitors. Studies have shown the majority don’t bother reading.
While the authors of the two sites I mentioned try to make the visitor to explore the whole content, they may do themselves some damage. Your visitor wants to be able to instantly spot the navigation. If he or she isn’t able to do that and is forced to search for the menu, time is being lost. If they have to scroll to the bottom of every single page to find links, they will get frustrated.
A faithful reader will read and explore everything, no matter where the navigation is, you say? Indeed he will. But what about your first-time visitor? What about a reader unsure whether or not he wants to stick around some more? What about readers who simply want to get to your “Links” section to find new stuff? You want to do your best to make them more interested in your work and to access the information quickly and easily. Everyone wants to find what they’re looking for quickly and easily.
If someone really wants to read what you have to say, they will do that. You don’t have to force them. Plus, isn’t your menu one of the most important elements of your web page? If you weigh the pros and cons, I can’t see how you can possibly find more pros. Thus, positioning the navigation on the bottom of the page in my mind is not a good idea.
What if your page is super short? For example, no longer than 600 px long? Navigation at the bottom could be excused, right? I thought about implementing this on my page (in the XHTML it’s at the bottom actually) but decided against it visually.
What about those pages with the hugemongcious headers that force a reader to scroll down at least 800 px before even reaching the navigation, or the main content? And what about all the navigation people put at the footer anyway, as a mini-sitemap? Just things to consider, that’s all.
Rose on September 15, 2005
Believe it or not, I tried this approach several years ago. The comments then ought to be the same as now: Navigation should always be visible.
While, some arguments brought to light in the discussion is valid. Such as what Powazek himself says:
But, however, I can not stress the importance of having a Navigation visible.
position: fixedWould have been a great solution, if it worked cross-browser. As is, you can get it to work, but not reliably.The optimal position of the navigation is acctually the bottom. Bottom right, to be more precise, since many westerner both read and look at an image from top left corner to bottom right.
So visually the navigation would be the last thing a user sees.
Another factor though is that you have to come to terms that a user may not be looking for your content, but something else, or perhaps they’re just surfing the web in general and, fear the worst, they just aren’t impressed by your site. If they can’t find a way out immedietaly you’ve not only made “no impression” but a “bad impression” as well.
Also, navigation should be below your content in the source code (screen reader issues), and some wants this, but just doesn’t go through the effort to use enough CSS hacks to present it at the top. Most, just support us with a “skip link”.
Basicly, I feel that the Bottom Navigations I’ve seen so far are not properly executed. I would love to see a site that does indeed use it right though. Hopefully that will start a trend.
Fredrik on September 15, 2005
@Rose: About your short page comment… For instance, Keegan’s site on a PC, with styles turned on, may not require much scrolling (depends on section of the site you are on and screen resolution)… But what about other devices, like palm/pocket computers? In that case, searching for the menu can make your life miserable. Edit: If your target audience has a large screen resolution, then this may not be a bad idea. My point with the article was, generally, I feel it is a bad idea.
Bojan on September 15, 2005
Each site should be taken on it’s own merits.
I’m sure there will be many more sites that adopt this technique - and do so both badly, and also in a perfectly usable way (I’m working on a site at the moment that has the nav at the bottom - but it will be a fixed height so limited “problems” / “issues” I guess).
You mention users being ‘forced to search’ for the navigation. Do you honestly believe that this is the case with both Powazek.com and KeeganJones.com? Scrolling down a bit is hardly a missive search - I found these 2 sites extremely easy to use. Why? Because the designers had made good design decisions in terms of composition, space, colour use and layout. I have been on loads of sites that have their navigation predictably at the top of the page under a predictable banner and, due to basic compositional ‘errors’ and poor design and structural choices, found myself totally lost on the site.
kevadamson on September 15, 2005
Nice site by the way! …
kevadamson on September 15, 2005
@Kev: Thanks for your kind words.
Do I think scrolling down is a massive search? Perhaps not massive, but if it indeed is a search, why bother doing it anyway? It’s up for the designer to decide whether it’ll pay off in any way, of course.
I am not saying this method is always bad. Like any other, it can turn out to be a disaster, if it’s not done right. I believe it can also be positive, in some cases. But unlike Fredrik, I hope it does not become a real trend, as I believe it will be badly executed on many sites.
Bojan on September 15, 2005
You misunderstood my point. I was never arguing for the main nav at the bottom. (My site has no main nav at all.)
My point was simply that, for the readers that DO make it all the way to the bottom, they should have something to look forward to. Something more than a copyright statement.
For example, you’ve got a search box down here - that’s a good start. But here I am - a user who read all the way to the end and took the time to comment. Where’s the link back to your homepage? Or archives? Or some related posts I might like? You’re missing a great opportunity to keep me in your site by abandoning me at the end of the page.
Derek on September 15, 2005
Bojan, good post.
I’ve been thinking about the same lately and in the end I think this isn’t more than a short-lived trend. People think it’s trendy, it’s different, it’s cool, and thus they are trying to convince themselves that it also makes sense. It’ll go away.
I’ve a relatively small screen (PB 15″) which makes me miss the navigation both on Dereks as well as on Keegan’s site.
To me it doesn’t make sense to assume the visitor first reads your boring posts– in case we are talking about blogs but that’s safe to assume because there aren’t many sites that a) put the navigation at the bottom b) have something to read other than blogs — before browsing the site. I don’t have a problem with scrolling when the content doesn’t fit in the view-port but I don’t see any reason for click-scroll-click-scroll when I’m just trying to navigate a site.
As for the visual aspect: have an excellently designed top, a killer middle part, and a “so-cool” bottom. That always works ;-)
Sebastian Schmieg on September 15, 2005
@Derek: I agree, site footers should be more interesting. I can see your point and it is and interesting one, but surely if we decide to make our footers richer we must not forget to provide a header that’s in the worst case equally interesting and useful. Indeed, your site nav is different from Keegan’s but may well start an avalanche.
About my site, having the search at the top is one of those things I wanted to do as soon as I designed this layout, but it’ll have to wait the re-design. Having it at the bottom is actually a drawback because in my mind the search box should be at the top, as I think it’s one of those things you shouldn’t scroll all the way down to find.
There is no link back to the homepage as the homepage itself is pretty much useless until the re-design.. I don’t think you have a reason to get back there. If you want to reach the blog home, there is a link at the very top. The index will soon have new features and real meaning. I have various ideas for it but never got around to do it yes.
The archives (by month) are reachable from any post, while the blog categories are reachable from virtually everywhere.
Bojan on September 15, 2005
But look at the experience you’re creating for your BEST users - the users who DO read all the way to the bottom: Firefox, Wordpress, RSS. Where are you encouraging them to go? One word: Away.
It’s your site - I’m all about doing whatever you want on your personal site. But don’t fret about an avalanche of bottom nav. Think about it this way: If users really don’t scroll, then they’ll never see it, so no harm done.
But maybe you should give it a try and see what it does to your inter-site traffic before you condemn it?
Derek on September 15, 2005
Mr. Powazek, you’re everywhere! But of course, you’re a web guru extraodinaire. Bojan, I can see your concern why people might want to imitate the elaborate footer technique. Derek Powazek has always been a trend setter! Hell I’ve taken some inspiration from Fray when I made Unsent Letters.
Concerning site traffic within a site: I find that people don’t really go into a site very deeply unless they are extremely curious, or unless it’s painfully easy for them to do. In fact many simply quit after the first page. Especially if it has a big flash thingamonstrosity. I do think that a good navigation helps to hook people in and get them to at least play around with it, for nothing else but for the “ohhh pretty” element.
But I don’t know any tried-and-true methods for keeping a visitor around, or to have that person read more than 50% of a site. In my own sites I abuse the “next” link a lot. I figure if I make it so that navigation can be accomplished in a strictly linear fashion, nothing can go wrong. It’s probably a pain though if they don’t care for the content, but I figure that content is the key to keeping visitors.
Rose on September 15, 2005
kevadamson, Bojan. What I was criticizing is not the navigation at the bottom of the page. It should be at the bottom of the page in a web document for two reasons:
1) Sitewide navigation will repeat itself for a screen reader over and over, when the user most likely will be after the content
2) Search engines.
However, for the first one a “skip” alternative should still be availiable at the top, or for each major page element. An internal navigation for the document itself. This is good praxis in terms of usability.
The ideal term though always is to have the navigation visible at all times. If it is visible, it should really be at the bottom of the screen in my opinion.
Keyword is visible. Laying there, smacked on the bottom of the screen. No matter how much you scroll it should still be there. This is acctually true either way, regardless of whether you place your navigation to the left or right. Users should always have the option to “get out” or navigate even if they scroll.
Not everyone has a scrollwheel. Not everyone can scroll efficiently. Some still just drag the bar. Never assume that anything about a user. That’s why the ideal layout is a fluid one with fixed elements.
I usually say never assume anything about your user, and if you have to assume the worst. So, basicly, don’t assume that scrolling falls naturally into place either.
Regarding users reading contents I read a study a while back that a mere 14% acctually read a whole newspaper, while over 75% acctually take the time to read through a webpage. In my opinion, that’s not a bad figure to start with.
Fredrik on September 15, 2005
[...] re!” But then I’m pushed into thinking… “Ah, how daft of me! I was fooled into thinking that by moving my navigation to the bottom of my pa [...]
Pingback fadtastic - a web trends journal » Blog Archive » Design over content, or is it content over design? on September 16, 2005
I don’t think you’d be able to know this as many people will change font sizes and view the site by different means.
The only way that I’m aware of is to declare a certain height and keep it fixed. But this has its issues.
Andrew Faulkner on September 16, 2005
To Bojan: The argument you present here is well supported by UI research and current standards. From a “business” point of view, a web designer would be insane to put the main navigation at the bottom of a page…especially when working for a traditional client. You’ve done a great job at explaining that and it was an interesting read.
but…
To all (including Derek): When it comes to a personal or portfolio design site, sometimes expression and being “different” is more important than rules. Nobody wants to be a sellout. Nobody wants their site to look like somebody elses… I know I don’t. And, I see the value in rewarding the users who make it to the bottom of your page, but if it’s navigation that you’re holding out for those people, you’re cutting your nose off to spite your face. Derek: On Powazek, why wouldn’t you put the Ephemera section at the bottom of the page and leave the navigation for everyone else?…because it’s eyecandy? It’s something that you know people will be interested in. Those images are something nobody else has on their site, and that nice dark border is a visual anchor for the page…heck the first t thing I clicked on after reading your post was the picture of the toilet. Navigation though, is not a reward; it’s a necesity. Otherwise, your website may as well be printed in a magazine. But, you’re a print designer. I think it actually works on your site because people who are primarily print designers have the tough job of thinking outside the browser on a day to day basis, and showing that on your personal site is an asset. In Keegan’s defense, I know the decision to put the navigation at the bottom was probably fueled by the same “I wanna be different” idea. Keegan however (like myself) is primarily a web desginer, and when I’m on his otherwise normally laid out about page, I expect to see a contact or portfolio link. Instead, I glance over and see that he likes Mountain Dew / Frappucino and plays Frisbee Golf…WHO CARES! The bottom line is that if you’re going to buck the system, you’d better be ready for some criticism. The other bottom line is that if you REALLY buck the system, you’re an artist. If you just barely wander off the beaten path…you’re a fool.
Jason Beaird on September 16, 2005
i’ve had my main nav at the bottom since the latest redesign, and even my clients like it. the case studies are at the top, and the main items at the bottom. it’s worked for me so far.
paul on September 16, 2005
It’s really weird to me how often I have to repeat this, but here goes: Please for the love of all that’s good DO put nav at the top. I’m not saying that nav should ONLY be at the bottom, I’m merely saying that it should ALSO be at the bottom.
And Jason? Dude. That “1995″ you see on my site? That’s when I started designing websites. Call me an idiot, call me an artist, just don’t call me a “print designer.”
Derek on September 16, 2005
Jason, you should really do some research on Derek Powazekbefore you call him a print designer. He’s been doing web design longer than just about anyone online. Yes, even longer than the “famous” Zeldman (who interviewed Derek back in ‘98).
Just because the web has evolved does not mean that the people who have been doing this stuff for a long, long time don’t know what they’re doing. Like true artists, they know the rules before they break them.
Rose on September 17, 2005
Derek, I stand corrected and apologize for defending your unique design decision with the erroneous title of print designer. In fact, after doing some belated research, you were probably a source of inspiration to me in the past with your reputation for creating unique designs… I did not call you an idiot. I would call you an artist any day. But I won’t make the mistake of calling you an print designer again.
Jason Beaird on September 18, 2005