In Designing Web Navigation, Kalbach identifies six navigation ‘gotchas’ that decrease the credibility of a site:
- Broad, vague categories, the meaning of which isn’t apparent to the user
- Cryptic abbrevations
- Poor organization of options within menus
- Unexpected navigation behaviour (for instance, top-level links leading to non-HTML content)
- Proof-reading errors
He also refers to co-research by a Stanford University team (notably including BJ Fogg) and Consumer Reports WebWatch that goes into more detail regarding website credibility assessment. Its conclusions are instructive – if alarming if one were hoping to find that web visitors use rational evaluative strategies in their assessments of credibility.
If the
report is to be believed, far and away the single most important factor used by site visitors is design look-and-feel. Users appear to have stringent demands for the appearance of a site – any sloppiness in design will not be tolerated; equally, however, an excessively ’slick’ or marketed look arouses suspicion. Presumably, furthermore, what counts as ’sloppy’ or ’slick’ will vary widely with demographic and individual preference.
The (distant) second factor is indeed information design and navigation structure. Fogg et al. speculatethat expertise in information design is in some fashion equated with expertise overall.
The third most important factor is information focus (i.e., breadth or narrowness of coverage). Interestingly, Fogg et al. concludes that material giving depth of coverage contributes to the perception of credibility, even if it is never read in any detail.
The remaining categories were all less significant; the main finding of interest was the incredibly low ranking given to information clarity and readability.
I found Fogg, et al.’s speculations on why information design and navigation structure correlate so strongly to perceived credibility unconvincing. Their conclusion was that the expertise demonstrated in effectively organizing site categories etc. was on some level perceived by visitors as indicative of expertise over all.
It seems more probable to me, however, that visitors come to a site with certain a priori assumptions about how site content could/should be logically organized, reflecting their own knowledge of the subject area, ideas of what is relevant, and preconceptions regarding its structure. Sites that mirror these judgements will be perceived both as accurate and as easy to use. Those that describe and organize their contents differently will not only seem confusing – they will be perceived as miscategorizing things, a mistake that could presumably only arise through ignorance. It would be interesting to know the extent to which information categorization affects credibility in areas of which visitors have little or no prior knowledge.
Design Observer
No Responses Yet to “Navigation and Credibility”