Llarc

The Site Map Dilemma

Do we need site maps? I’m not talking about those ones for spiders, but the ones created by UX professionals for illustrating content pages and hierarchy for a website. This question plagues me. I had a discussion with a creative technologist friend of mine not too long ago, and decided it was something I needed to explore.

My approach

1. Define the audiences and intended uses for a site map (use cases)
2. Research definitions, references, and context
3. Search for alternatives and evaluate against use cases
4. Solution? Defeat?

Who typically uses a site map?

• project manager – provides insight into project scope
• ux/graphic/interaction designer – provides a “map” of pages, insights into potential navigation structure, can help identify missing content items, understanding of domain and development of nomenclature
• writer/copywriter/editor – illustrates content requirements, helps to structure content plans and copy decks
• developer/system architect – provides insight into data structure and number of pages/page elements
• client – provides high level information about site content, early identification of gaps or redundancy in content prior to design phase, nomenclature verification

It’s clear site maps serve an important role to many stakeholders to communicate design, content, structure and organization of ideas - but is it the right format?

In Dan Brown’s book Communicating Design – Developing Web Site Documentation for Design and Planning, he defines a site map as follows:

“A visual representation of the relationships between different pages on a web site. Also known as a structural model, taxonomy, hierarchy, navigation model or site structure.”

Let’s break this down:

• Visual
• Relationship between pages
• Navigation or structural model

Wikipedia defines the word “map” as:

 “A map is a visual representation of an area – a symbolic depiction highlighting relationships between elements of that space such as objects, regions, and themes.”

I’ve seen site maps delivered as an excel document with a matrix of pages and dependencies, but based on the above definitions, a key qualifier for communicating the structure of a site/application is largely visual.

Here is the problem I see with site maps in today’s world: they tend to visualize the structure and content in a very linear and rigid format. But as our products make use of more dynamic content, the representation of the content should be more circular, connected, and illustrate the varying “states” of content. We now have the ability to identify individual users (via IP detect, tracking pixels, cookies, authenticated vs non-authenticated users, etc.), and serve them relevant and unique content based on who they are. How could you possibly show all these scenarios in the form of a site map?

Alternatives?

So this got me thinking of alternatives that could still provide value to all stakeholders and address their needs. As it turns out, a few people have already explored this in the past couple of years. One of the best articles I came across was in UX Magazine from about 2 years ago, where the idea of using a node based structure (concept map) was presented.

Image credit: UXMagazine

Similar to what I was envisioning, it shows dynamic relationships, is not linear and still identifies the content requirements. The drawback is that it can become too abstract for stakeholders to understand depending on the complexity. But I do think this is a good direction to go.

Other contenders?

I started searching around on some other potential diagram types that could work, and for the sake of keeping this relatively short and focusing on some main players, have included a few below for consideration (of course, there are multiple other data visualization techniques and diagrams out there).

AFFINITY DIAGRAM

Image credit: Paula Wood

Affinity diagrams are used in brainstorming exercises to help organize ideas. These often look like a descendant or close relative of a site map. The one above, however, takes a bit of a different approach by using venn diagrams. The issue here, is that the information presented does not contain a lot of low level detail.

BUBBLE DIAGRAM

Image credit: Greensphere Wellness Center

A bubble diagram is like a concept map without connecting lines (although some will employ the use of connecting lines). It can show groupings and priority of information in a non-linear fashion. As above, there is still a lack of low level detail.

BECK DIAGRAM

Image credit: Wikipedia 

Henry Beck developed the first subway map of its kind in 1931 when he created the London Underground Tube map. Today, we all know this to be the standard visual representation of most major subway systems. I know this is a bit surreal, but I think that in theory it could work to represent content and content intersections. However, this would likely be far too confusing to stakeholders (but may be an idea to try just for fun!).

One other thing to chew on…where does Lean UX fit into this quandary - where decreasing deliverables is sometimes part of the theory? Would this be one of the artifacts cut out of the process? Or would this become a more cooperative team approach where the ideas are sketched out in an undefined diagram type and perhaps not finalized in a standard ‘deliverable’ document such as a formal site map?

As you can see I have mostly questions, the start of ideas, and no answers at this point. In writing this, I have realized that it’s ok not to have a solution…YET. Getting my thoughts on paper and hopefully opening up the subject to collaborative discussion, however, would be a great start…

Opening image credit: Royal CSS